Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Each settlement can train X things up to level Y. X always remains the same and is determined by which prebuilt settlement you choose. Y, however, is determined by the number of towers you have.
What is the smallest number of settlements that can collectively train all X?
Goblin Squad Member
|
Small groups expected to have several months to build up numbers before inter-settlement conflict would have any meaningful results. Now we are told that will happen on day 1 of EE. Unless a group can take/retain towers their settlement will be at a disadvantage to provide training to their members, which will be apparent, and will also be a detriment to their ability to attract residents during EE.
Those with zero PvP experience will no longer have any opportunity to absorb that before losing has meaningful consequences to the future of their settlement. They will fall like glass in the face of large, organized groups.
Okay, I hear you.
It sounds like you're very opposed to allying with powerful groups, and yet that is the very heart of the game, especially in the "Core" area of the map. Ryan has told us there will likely always be an opportunity for cohesive, well-organized groups to go to the "Frontier" to try to take a Settlement.
For what it's worth, it doesn't sound like they're actually taking away any training options from you - you can still train at the NPC Settlements - they're just adding a mechanic for increased training, and for training directly at your Settlement, which previously weren't options.
These considerations were very much on our minds when we chose our Settlement location, finding significant value in having low "foot traffic" - that is, a relatively small number of players in the area for reasons other than specifically to interact with us.
If it's any consolation, I know I'm not the only one who believed your group had a real shot at remaining politically neutral enough to avoid having anyone specifically target you, and I, for one, still believe that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think he means that since the majority of players aren't participating in the Land Rush or the current politicking, the big groups that do currently exist will have a huge advantage as the small people won't have the time buffer during EE to build up their numbers from the general populace.If we're talking about players joining Early Enrollment after the Land Rush, during the War of Towers, before the Great Catastrophe...
A small group can form their own Company and start growing it. At the same time, they can join a larger Company to assist in capturing and holding a Tower. They can then begin the process of growing their own Company.
That small group should have no expectations of running a Settlement right away.
Or am I still missing something, Cal B?
It is a harsh thing for small groups that want to come in and explore the settlement game in it's early stages. I think that is a reasonable feeling. I have a premonition that the top 10 settlement vote totals will be much higher than now, by week 10.
Something to keep in mind is there is value in teaming up with people, getting your training, and at the right time later, setting out to make your own claim (probably with the aid of those you helped earlier) as the map expands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most small settlements will have to give up before they have time to train anything.
Unless I'm missing something, it seems likely that the OPPOSITE will be true. That is, ANY 'guild' which wins one of the land rush settlements should be in great shape... no matter how small they are.
Why? Because there is no apparent method of capturing a SETTLEMENT yet. Nor any apparent benefit to capturing a tower unless you are allied with a settlement. Nor any apparent way to found NEW settlements yet.
So, when EE rolls around and the game population explodes to many times that of the land rush participation there are going to be tons of players looking to get in on the towers game... which they can only do by allying with a settlement. That little seven person settlement is completely indestructible (until later in the game) AND can provide cool training benefits if some of these new people form a company and ally with them. Indeed, if the settlement is small and allied companies only control a few hexes then their PvP window will be short and it will be easier for small companies to hold their towers.
Basically, it seems like the 33 initial settlements from the land rush just got A LOT more important. Instead of being added months down the line they will be in the game from day 1. Further, instead of having to compete with newly founded settlements they will be the only options for several months.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The pretense was that an untrained alt could be held off by a trained character. At the star of EE, no untrained alt will be at any disadvantage to any non-alt.
I agree, but that's irrelevant because there's is no benefit to holding a tower until you need the training level it supports. There is literally no benefit to holding towers on day 1 because you can't train any abilities any higher with them than you could without them.
By the time you need towers to support your training, by definition you're more trained than a newborn alt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To put a small rephrasing on what I expect to happen: Everybody knows precisely when and where the big PvP events will be. People who want to participate will be there, and people who don't want to participate probably won't be.
I didn't see anything that implied that training wouldn't be available at NPC settlements, or that zero training would be available at settlements that controlled zero towers.
A) everybody does NOT know. If a groups has six members and six towers they have to put one person at each tower. At worst, a group needs ten or 15 people to take most of their towers away.
B) apparently you missed this from the blog: "The more Towers a Settlement indirectly controls the more training the Settlement can offer its members. So control of Towers dictates how powerful characters can become and loss of Towers can reduce the power level of characters."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sure, if someone has enough characters, training time, player time, and multitasking ability to assault a tower while defending thirty others, they're going to be pretty powerful entities.
The difficulty of keeping all your towers scales with the square of the number of towers held- you have to hold an increasing number of towers for an increasingly long window. Meanwhile, the number of companies holding a tower increases linearly, and the difficulty of finding a time for the vulnerability window that works well for every company explodes in a manner greater than exponentially.
Agreed. Even big settlements are going to have to take an appetite suppressant; there's little reason to take and claim a lot of towers if you can't protect them day after day. Taking them with spare companies, but not claiming them might be a technique, but then the members of the companies may be missing training opportunities and becoming relatively weaker day by day. The number of towers that a settlement "needs" might therefore start low and increase over time if they are on the leading edge of their training - leading to more conflict over time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not all cases are those hexes easy. The most pathological case is -08.06 which is next to T, but because of elevation is 10 travel hexes away (including 3 only 1 travel hex from W (Golgotha). What are the odds that W will take that before T even gets there?Shh! Don't talk about that hex!
Don't look here, whoever ends up in T, nothing to see!
Even if TEO moved to "T", I doubt they would try for that hex. It would be a major confrontation if they did and probably unsuccessful. W" supply line: 1 to three hexes covering the approach and 2 to the hex under consideration; "T": 7, 8, 9 to the protecting hexes and 10 to the target site. Depends on timeline after "dying", but if cool down is 0, "W" can win even taking 9 times the losses (unless it runs out of weapons).
A much smaller settlement could defend that "rat hole" you have. (not meant as disparaging, but descriptive of highly secure site with small entry where you can bite anything that is close).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you concern might be based on a slight misinterpretation of the full settlement system.
Settlements (in the full system) cannot maintain their structures without upkeep. Upkeep requires the ownership of multiple hexes. Thus, a settlement cannot survive without capturing and holding land around them. Just like with War of the Towers. That has always been the case - settlement warfare and land control is the central system to drive PvP in PFO.
Now I should point out that 'every commoner is a viable target for PvP' ONLY when the PvP window is open for that hex. This commoner will know when the PvP window is open and can therefore choose to visit another hex. If a player is not interested in PvP they can make their home in one of the NPC settlements and visit any hex they want that is either not a tower hex, or a tower hex whose PvP window is not currently open.
Is that clearer?
Clearer. And yet...
There's a major difference "need to hold land to upkeep" and "need to hold land" (without any upkeep part ever implemented). Missing the actual upkeep part as mechanics makes every non PvP-ing character redundant for the system, until the distant future when the system changes.By that time all successfull settlements will be the most PvP-heavy, mostly using some sort of zerg tactics (since at start all characters so it's mostly numbers and real-life aggressiveness and willingness to PvP will matter at the war of towers). At start, bulk resource management is not in game, and there are no development indexes linked to reputation, alignment, settlement laws and other meaningful player behaviour yet. Taken this, using PvP activity as the only thing that strategically matters for leveling buildings (and high level settlement buildings now seem to be the most wanted strategic asset in the settlement system, for what it looks like now) is just saying "for the settlement to develop, it needs only big numbers of aggresive people, everything else is redundant - forget all that rep, alignment and the stuff"... By the time the full sustem gets implemented, the game effects of such policy on server population behavior will already be well seen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
200 person group. Each person puts an alt in several strategic spots.But all of those alts are completely untrained. If a character with a couple of weeks of training isn't powerful enough to hold off dozens of day-0 noobs, then Ryan has failed to learn the lesson taught by Professor A Thousand Goons In Rifters.Everyone is untrained on day 1 of EE.
Most small settlements will have to give up before they have time to train anything.
I disagree. First off, everyone can train up to X (Some level, lets say 5 out of 20) through a NPC settlement. Even if you choose not to train in a NPC settlement, I would think that basic skills, like lvl 1 or 2, can be trained without any towers under your control. So you will always be able to train skills, though basic, with or without towers. (No one has actually said this, it is all speculation based on how I would do it and what makes the most sense to me.)
Thought it was said that NPC settlements will offer training so I guess I was right that you can always get some training.
Anyway, the other thing to remember, day 1 of EE, most people will be running out to claim the towers right next to their respective settlements, something like first 6 people, 1 to each tower. Since, as of right now, there is no talk of any guards or monsters there to prevent 1 person from claiming the tower, this is the most feasible plan I think. From there, people will spread and try to claim towers for their settlement, but that is when we start to "fight" over them.
Over time, maybe a week or two, depending on how bold and aggressive people are, settlements will settle with what they can comfortably hold. Even big membership settlements like TEO will "Cap out" somewhere. Sure they will have more towers than smaller settlements, but everyone will have some number of towers. I highly doubt that ANY of the 33 EE settlements will end up with 0 towers. If you can't hold a single tower, then your not big/strong enough to have the settlement IMHO. Settlements are not meant to be held by 5 people. Maybe 10 companies of 5 people each, but that makes a 50 person settlement.
Cold hard truth = if you have no interest in joining with other companies to form a settlement and can't get more than say 30 members on your own, then stay in an NPC settlement and ignore the settlement portion of the game. This is my opinion and just my thoughts on it. This is a MMO, meaning "play with other people" and the game mechanics and Devs are supporting that concept. If you want to solo, then solo that is fine. Just stay in an NPC town and you will be limited. You can't play this game without risks, and those risks come from working with others and residing in a PC settlement and the perks that come with it.
I am not going to apologize for my tone as I am a bit frustrated. Read what people are saying, and what the Devs are saying and you will see that this is the game working as intended. This is a competitive territorial PVP game. If you don't want to participate in that, either work around it (by staying with a NPC town and not complaining when you can't get skills to any respectable level) or maybe this isn't the game for you. Give it a chance and talk with other people and work together. How do you think TEO, T7V, PAX, UNC, and others have gotten so big? We talked with others, share a common goal, and are going to reap the benefits of our agreements. We are also taking the risks that come with it, including losing any towers we control, eventually losing our settlement is a possibility, and the risk of feuds and war from other settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is literally no benefit to holding towers on day 1 because you can't train any abilities any higher with them than you could without them.I see benefit in controlling them in order to control their PvP Window. If they're uncontrolled, their PvP Window is 24/7.
Fair point, but that's a benefit to the tower being controlled, not a benefit to controlling the tower. If your goal is just to close the window on the towers near you for the sake of your harvesters, then you can be just as happy with someone else claiming them as claiming them yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed. Even big settlements are going to have to take an appetite suppressant; there's little reason to take and claim a lot of towers if you can't protect them day after day. Taking them with spare companies, but not claiming them might be a technique, but then the members of the companies may be missing training opportunities and becoming relatively weaker day by day. The number of towers that a settlement "needs" might therefore start low and increase over time if they are on the leading edge of their training - leading to more conflict over time.
Some of the bottom 23 groups have enough people to put 6 on each tower in their directly controlled hex.
The top 10 groups can put six people in each of theirs, plus put six people in each of another 60-65 hexes
What you need is not what matters. Denying your opposition what they need is as, or more, important.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What would happen if you held 6 towers, started training something that requires 6 towers, then halfway through you lose the tower. Does that mean your training halts until you regain that 6th tower again?
You accumulate xp over time and then spend xp on skills. So either the skill is available to train when you get enough xp for it or it's not available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"...the first company to cross a certain threshold gains control of the tower."
Once that threshold's crossed, is that it for that PVP window-open period? In other words, if you've got a horde of folks, and they "pop" the tower in a few minutes, does that then make everyone in that hex safe from that moment until the window opens again?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair point, but that's a benefit to the tower being controlled, not a benefit to controlling the tower. If your goal is just to close the window on the towers near you for the sake of your harvesters, then you can be just as happy with someone else claiming them as claiming them yourself.There is literally no benefit to holding towers on day 1 because you can't train any abilities any higher with them than you could without them.I see benefit in controlling them in order to control their PvP Window. If they're uncontrolled, their PvP Window is 24/7.
Fair point, but if you don't control the Tower, then you don't control the Tower's PvP Window.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What would happen if you held 6 towers, started training something that requires 6 towers, then halfway through you lose the tower. Does that mean your training halts until you regain that 6th tower again?
I believe training occurs instantly. I believe the only time constraint is on the Training Facility recovering the ability to offer that training to someone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not going to apologize for my tone as I am a bit frustrated. Read what people are saying, and what the Devs are saying and you will see that this is the game working as intended. This is a competitive territorial PVP game. If you don't want to participate in that, either work around it (by staying with a NPC town and not complaining when you can't get skills to any respectable level) or maybe this isn't the game for you. Give it a chance and talk with other people and work together. How do you think TEO, T7V, PAX, UNC, and others have gotten so big? We talked with others, share a common goal, and are going to reap the benefits of our agreements. We are also taking the risks that come with it, including losing any towers we control, eventually losing our settlement is a possibility, and the risk of feuds and war from other settlements.
Nor will I apologize. this is NOT the game I started playing 3 weeks ago. I invested a great deal of time in something I thought would last a guaranteed few months and give me time to draw in people who are not on these boards and have no idea the game has started. Now I am certain I will have nothing left to offer them on the day they arrive, and there is virtually zero chance of my getting to 50, let alone the 500 people needed to make a go of settlement. They will enter the game, and within a week or two they will see 10 settlements controlling the vast majority of what they need in order to grow their skill set and will have no incentive to give a smaller group a try.
Even in the worst of medieval situations there were plenty of small communities that did very well. Not so here.
Why even have thirty settlements to start if play is going to eliminate 20 of them right off the bat? If I'd realized I was only here as fodder for large groups to train themselves the first week, I wouldn't have bothered.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why? Because there is no apparent method of capturing a SETTLEMENT yet. Nor any apparent benefit to capturing a tower unless you are allied with a settlement. Nor any apparent way to found NEW settlements yet.
They don't have to capture it. Newcomer sees a dozen settlements where they can get any training they want, and another 20 where they can't. End of story for 90% of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The top 10 groups can put six people in each of theirs, plus put six people in each of another 60-65 hexes
I think you are underestimating how difficult projecting force across the map is going to be, and how much of an advantage having a permanent, indestructible safe home base will be.
Group A has 500 members, and a 24/7 PVP window, and is trying to take a tower 10 hexes away from their settlement.
Group B has 25 members, a 4 hour PVP window, and is trying to control the 6 towers around their settlement.
Lets say Group A did a massive zerg and takes all 6 of the towers surrounding Group B's settlement. Now Group B has to organize and take them back.
1) They can pick anytime that works for them (24/7 PVP window of Group A)
2) They can drop all 25 members against 1 tower, with a 2-3 minute respawn time. Each member of group A has to spend 20 minutes running back across hexes from their bind point, and they have multiple other hexes to be defending 24/7
3) As soon as group B wins one tower, they can set their PVP window to open 20 hours later, and go to work on a second tower.
Basically, Group A has to constantly win every fight, while Group B only needs to win once.
With the respawn time in consideration, if Group A sends 100 defenders, and Group B's 25 attackers can kill 10 of those defenders each time they attack, Group B will take the tower before the first 10 dead defenders even have time to run back from their bind point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not sure I'm making this clear...
You and your settlement will not be able to hold ANY towers (well, your company can). You will NEED to ally with OTHER companies to hold towers. Only companies can hold towers. Everyone will need allies. A small company will certainly be able to hold a tower - and if they are worried about defense they would be wise not to pledge it to a settlement with a huge PvP window unless that settlement can offer defensive support.
But, currently, the settlements are composed almost entirely of companies. Take Tavernhold, for example. Our population currently consists of Golden Flask, Dream Seekers, and some as-yet-unaligned players who plan to form a company. Will we only be able to hold 2 towers? Should we divide our population into smaller groups and call them all "companies"?
Should we set our PvP window to be as far from the time this goes live as possible, sprint out in all directions claiming every tower we come across, knowing we can't hold them once our window opens, but also that they can't be taken until then, so we get however much DI accrues during that time? (Yes, that would violate my understanding of Roseblood - I'm not advocating that tactic)
Can The Empyrean Order simply motivate their 182 players and roll across the map taking everything in their path?
The Gauntlet has 11 players. They are surrounded by four groups with 17, 18, 31, and 50. How realistic are their chances?
Golgotha, by blocking the Emerald Pass, seals off 4 towers they won't even have to defend, one of which is in Four Rivers' halo area.
Can the 7 members of Otium Explorator reasonably prevent the 45 members of Forgeholm from taking all 5 "neutral" towers in the Northeastern mountains? Will they even be able to hold their own 6?
We're going to need a lot more information about the mechanics of this in order to plan for it. I feel like this is forcing us to rush into political alliances based on a purely temporary tactical situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The most pathological case is -08.06 which is next to T, but because of elevation is 10 travel hexes away (including 3 only 1 travel hex from W (Golgotha). What are the odds that W will take that before T even gets there?
But seriously, whoever ends up in T wouldn't expect to ever have any serious control over that hex anyway, with or without towers. In fact, due to its strategic location, it should from now on be called the "Golgothan Heights" :-). The catapults Golgotha is going to place up there are going to spell disaster for the settlement at T...
On a more general note, (companies allied to) settlements in the middle of the map will just have a much more difficult time to defend their holdings, with being surrounded on all sides and no free towers near the edge of the map nearby.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I ended up in a small population settlement directly adjacent to a large, aggressive settlement, I think my first tactic would be a diplomatic note that went something like this:
"Big Town #1, I see that you have chosen Warrior and Mage as the favored classes of your settlement. How about if your great army helps my small settlement control our rightful 6 towers, and we choose to specialize in Rogue and Cleric training. We let your people train in our buildings, and you send some guards over to our towers for a few hours a day? If this arrangement works well, I'd be happy to discuss more cooperation between our groups as the settlement mechanics evolve."
If they say no, we have all our training needs covered elsewhere, then my second diplomatic note might go along the lines of:
"Big Town #2, I see that your forces are strong, but must travel far across the map to find a worthy opponent. I can offer your great army a safe, indestructible bind point very close to the lands of Big Town #1. If your warriors would just guard a couple of our towers for a few hours per day, I'd be happy to let you use our facilities to rest and recover between your righteous onslaughts against the dastardly inhabitants of Big Town #1"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Gauntlet has 11 players. They are surrounded by four groups with 17, 18, 31, and 50. How realistic are their chances?
Keep in mind that a lot more people will get involved once EE starts. They are hoping for around 20,000 within a couple months... that'd be ~20x the land rush population. Those players will apparently have a choice of joining one of the 33 land rush settlements or sitting out the 'war of towers' until the ability to build new settlements is added.
Golgotha, by blocking the Emerald Pass, seals off 4 towers they won't even have to defend, one of which is in Four Rivers' halo area.
In order to block that pass they'd have to engage in PvP even when the window for that hex was closed. That could quickly destroy their reputation levels.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Speaking personally for myself, I am really not happy with this. Call me entitled, but we all were planning long term for a different landscape and did not expect this cataclysmic change to the MVP. Goblinworks, if you're expecting praise, look elsewhere. This is another spout of confusion over a new feature set. The irony is, I am not as entrenched as other players, and this just throws the baby out with the bath water.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Golgotha, by blocking the Emerald Pass, seals off 4 towers they won't even have to defend, one of which is in Four Rivers' halo area.In order to block that pass they'd have to engage in PvP even when the window for that hex was closed. That could quickly destroy their reputation levels.
I believe we'll be able to build a POI in a Choke Point Hex. I also believe Ryan has stated that being able to control access to lands you control is the very definition of "meaningful", so I expect we'll be able to engage in consequence-free PvP with players attempting to travel through our lands even when outside of our Vulnerability Window.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Guys, there can't be hyndreds of alts yet, since early enrollment costs $100 per account. This interim measure won't last to OE, so the hundreds of alts issues won't have anything to do with tower defense.You are of the impression that there will be no alts permitted during early enrollment?
Alts don't require a separate account or any extra money. They are a separate character on the same account.
This is not a good thing for small groups.
While I understand your definition of alts and agree with it, I disagree with the idea that alts will make it into EE. Since alts will kinda be like a F2P account in some aspects, I expect them to be either non-existent in EE, or very limited (like 1 per account or something). There will be destinies twins though, but even with 1 alt per account, there is still very unlikely that alt zergs will be an issue. Just my thoughts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe we'll be able to build a POI in a Choke Point Hex.
Sorry, to clarify, I was referring to 'day 1' when PoIs apparently don't exist yet (since the blog said they will transition from towers to PoIs later).
I also believe Ryan has stated that being able to control access to lands you control is the very definition of "meaningful", so I expect we'll be able to engage in consequence-free PvP with players attempting to travel through our lands even when outside of our Vulnerability Window.
The pass doesn't have a tower, and thus can't be 'controlled' by anyone during the 'war of towers' period.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Gauntlet has 11 players. They are surrounded by four groups with 17, 18, 31, and 50. How realistic are their chances?Keep in mind that a lot more people will get involved once EE starts. They are hoping for around 20,000 within a couple months... that'd be ~20x the land rush population. Those players will apparently have a choice of joining one of the 33 land rush settlements or sitting out the 'war of towers' until the ability to build new settlements is added.
Strictly guesswork on my part of how the game will unfold, but I think waiting for the ability to build new settlements is not a winning move.
If I were leading a smaller company (ie, not going to be in the top 33) and really, really, really wanted to be in the settlement management game, I'd be looking for a spot and looking at that spot's neighbors. Strong settlements will be able to leverage their success to helping other settlements get started - and they're likely to look to people who have been long-time allies.
I think to "win" (ie, to survive), a settlement is going to have to be able to juggle PvP, PvE, diplomacy, gathering and crafting to some acceptable degree. Might as well jump in early - the world isn't going to be more forgiving in OE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
a) Each settlement can train X things up to level Y. X always remains the same and is determined by which prebuilt settlement you choose. Y, however, is determined by the number of towers you have.
Basically, every ability/skill/feat in the game has 20 levels. Every tower you own adds another level to the training available in your settlement.
b)This harks back to a previous post. So - being able to TRAIN means that there will be a structure in the settlement from which a player can purchase skills for that class or role. Being able to SUPPORT means there will be a structure in that settlement that can maintain the training gained for a player's class or role (i.e....
There is an additional factor not mentioned here that seems crucial to me - the level to which a settlement needs to train in order to provide training for its most advanced members. For example, on day one of EE, it simply will not be necessary to ensure your settlement holds enough towers that they can provide 20th level training. XP advancement being in real time, there will not be any 20th level characters.
So, let's define a couple more factors here, let's say T for the amount of time to pass from the launch of EE and Z for the maximum level of training a singularly focused character might need in order to train his most advanced skills, feats, abilities, or what have you.
Tork, can you please describe in greater detail the relationship between Y and Z within a given value for T? For example, let's say that after one week of EE (T = 1 week), the highest level that a character could be expected to reach might be level 3 (Z = 3). So if I want my settlement to be able to train characters to the highest possible level (I want my settlement's Y value to always be at least equal to Z), how many towers might a settlement need to hold in order to ensure adequate training at level Z?
I believe this information is critical to developing an accurate picture of how this system is going to play out. If, for example, a settlement will only need to hold two towers to ensure adequate training after a month of play, that creates a completely different perception than if that same settlement will need to have enough sponsored companies to hold a dozen towers after that same month.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
To put a small rephrasing on what I expect to happen: Everybody knows precisely when and where the big PvP events will be. People who want to participate will be there, and people who don't want to participate probably won't be.
I didn't see anything that implied that training wouldn't be available at NPC settlements, or that zero training would be available at settlements that controlled zero towers.
A) everybody does NOT know. If a groups has six members and six towers they have to put one person at each tower. At worst, a group needs ten or 15 people to take most of their towers away.
B) apparently you missed this from the blog: "The more Towers a Settlement indirectly controls the more training the Settlement can offer its members. So control of Towers dictates how powerful characters can become and loss of Towers can reduce the power level of characters."
If a group has six members, I expect that they will have on average less than one tower. They can still be a part of whatever settlement they want, and they can fight in the attack and defense of towers even if they don't take control. Sometimes they might take a tower, simply because on a given day nobody stronger than them shows up at a given location.
Remember, every time a group loses a tower, a group seizes a tower- and vice versa.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like this blog.
Me neither as I am not a big fan of PVP, but I expect enough french players at OE to fill in the ranks. Meanwhile, you see the point of having a remote [AB] and GMT+1 (French) settlement, as we will be able optimize our pvp window in the most favorable way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nor will I apologize. this is NOT the game I started playing 3 weeks ago. I invested a great deal of time in something I thought would last a guaranteed few months and give me time to draw in people who are not on these boards and have no idea the game has started. Now I am certain I will have nothing left to offer them on the day they arrive, and there is virtually zero chance of my getting to 50, let alone the 500 people needed to make a go of settlement. They will enter the game, and within a week or two they will see 10 settlements controlling the vast majority of what they need in order to grow their skill set and will have no incentive to give a smaller group a try.
Even in the worst of medieval situations there were plenty of small communities that did very well. Not so here.
Why even have thirty settlements to start if play is going to eliminate 20 of them right off the bat? If I'd realized I was only here as fodder for large groups to train themselves the first week, I wouldn't have bothered.
I don't see where your coming from. I don't see how 20 settlements will be run off within the first few weeks or even before OE. At worst, since this is all being crowdforged anyway, I would expect that if it was that easy to pin down and "crush" a settlement as you are describing, I would be the first to speak up and vocalize the fact that things need to be changed.
That being said, you think you can get up to 50ish members in a few months, then do it. You can reclaim towers held by anyone at any time their pvp window is open. If the top 10 get as big as your expecting, then all towers will be 24/7 open for PVP which means you just gather a few and attack and claim some for yourself. You then set the window start time, and since you will only have a tower or 2 your window will be short, and only have to protect it during that time. If your not the only settlement in this situation, then others will do the same and even us "big towns" can't protect all those towers at the same time, and it would reach a middle ground where we would be forced to only hold what we can hold at all times, and you then get to keep the few you took.
Does that make sense? It is my belief that your over thinking this and blowing it bigger than it really will be. And I truly mean it that I would support "the little guy" settlements if it does go that way, because I don't want this to be a game of a few settlements, and 10 is still too few IMHO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are a great deal of people on this thread who seem to be worried about the actions of the big three guilds.
I would be surprised if any of the big three would rapidly expand beyond the first or second layer of towers outside of their city, due to the inevitable task of (not from the first day) paying upkeep on those towers.
We do not know when GW will implement upkeep.
The larger guilds do have an advantage, in that their areas of operation may be slightly larger and better defended.
I do not see TEO switching from our current location, and... more importantly ...we have stated, multiple times, that our main goal is to promote positive gameplay.
Any small, and non-aggressive (to TEO or allies) guilds should not be worried about TEO swooping in, and claiming hexes around their cities... as it would NOT promote positive gameplay and building a community that would make the game last long-term.
Any small like-minded companies should really get in touch with our ambassadors.
Brax of TEO
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Related to my post above, I hope everyone bears in mind that the incentive to capture towers is limited to ensuring adequate training for your settlement. In other words, if I only need to hold two towers in order to provide my settlement with the training it needs, then I don't have any incentive to take your towers away from you. I can just hold a couple local towers and I'm good. Grabbing more towers than I need at a given amount of time from launch gets me nothing except enemies.
As more time passes, I will eventually need to hold a third nearby tower, and then a fourth, and so on, but that leaves possibly weeks if not months before I have any reason to start looking beyond my nearby six towers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This tower game :
a) made people aware of the PVP sandbox realities before OE, i.e. you can't avoid PVP, so make peace with that. And posse up with some friends.
b) will test the scaling and balance of 20 power levels across 4 roles and several tiers of gear/keywords simultaneously
c) Is a lot nicer for the non PVPers than saying no reputation until OE.
edit: all of the above I like ; )
However, I do not like the idea of any rewards from the tower game having an effect beyond EE. Gains made without reputation in effect should not impact groups playing under the restriction of reputation.
If you rob a bank then play poker with people who cannot rob banks, you're cheating.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another thing that I have noticed that seams to be an issue, while this blog is all about day 1 EE PVP activities, there is no change on the PVE and "other" activities from before. If anything I would expect that PVEers would be happy to know that most of the PVPer types will be focused on claiming and holding their towers from other PVPers, whereby leaving the PVEers alone on their travels. Unless they walk through a tower hex which is then the PVEer's fault IMHO. I expect there to be some sort of message when entering a hex, or at least the tower hexes, that will inform the person entering the hex weather the tower is PVP open or not. If you ignore the message, then it's your risk, if you heed it, then your safer. Not 100% safe in non-tower hexes, but safer.
Also, for the smaller companies out there, and smaller settlements. I said before and I will say again, at this moment there at 155 "guilds" signed up on the landrush, and only 33 of them get settlements, which mean 122 of them are homeless. This are potential recruits to ANY of the settlements, including the smaller ones, which could bolster your numbers to the range of the top 10. Even if all 122 have 1 member in them, that is 122 members that, if spread out, would get every settlement into the 20ish range I think? so what can you do with 20 members? I bet you can grab and hold at least 1 or 2 towers....
Wow, this is awesome.
What happens when people throw 50 free-to-play level 1 characters into a tower just to bolster their cap number?
This is EE, so...not much. Fifty of your members are now being forced to play level 1 characters instead of their mains, the tower will be easy to conquer for anyone else ("Hey, thanks for keeping the couch warm, guys."), and you'll look rather foolish.
After EE, this might be more of an issue...except then the towers won't be around, so, yeah. :P
PvP has always been a bit of a concern for me(and a few others id imagine), I heard enough reassurances from folks here that the rep system and other things were being introduced to curtail toxic behaviors.. Now a month or so before EE you guys decide 30% of the map should be a free for all PvP reputation free murder fest? What gives…
I raised a similar point, but here's something important to note.
Not all the towers will be free-for-all at the time. It all depends on the PvP window. I expect the odds of entering an Open Window Hex will be fairly low.
It's a reasonable concern, though. You can tell 'cause I haz it, too. ;)
If it doesn't get fleshed out by OE then GW was lying and has no intention or ability to deliver the proposed settlement system.
I think this is a bit excessive. Someone has concerns that GW won't pull something off. That doesn't mean they're calling Goblinworks a bunch of liars.
It will if the number of bodies in the tower determine if you are in control of a tower... and if you are then the area is a reputation free for murder zone..
Except you can't have more than one character online at a time unless you have multiple accounts in EE. Which is pretty impossible unless you're willing to spend hundreds of dollars.
Looks like absolutely another game, nothing like sandbox. In this version, you have no chance of actually "building" anything form sand; instead, your only option is hitting other kids' heads with your toy spade, and as result of your hitting sandcastles are supposed to rise from the sand themselves. Somehow.
Dude, it's worse than you know. See, Stephen Cheney's cat found the sandbox...
Wow, there are a lot of posts here.
I don't think F2P accounts will be in before OE so EVERYONE in EE will be $100+ accounts, meaning to zerg, will cost a lot of money.
Yeah, yeah, ninja'd by a damn rogue.
I see towers changing hands fairly often, at least until people learn what they can hold with their numbers.
I both agree and disagree. I think most people are just gonna grab towers and try to hold on. I think that the closer we get to settlement release, the more people are gonna start squabbling.
Now I should point out that 'every commoner is a viable target for PvP' ONLY when the PvP window is open for that hex. This commoner will know when the PvP window is open and can therefore choose to visit another hex.
Yay! Thanks, Tork, for hanging around and clarifying stuff. So no Gank Windows.
Basically, you describing gunswarm scenario, only way faster?
OH, GOD, THEY'RE....EVOLVING!
I don't like this blog.
Ok
Alts don't require a separate account or any extra money. They are a separate character on the same account.
You cannot login on more than one character at once on the same account.
Huh. This makes me feel surprisingly better. Thank you. Really.
You must be new here. Proper etiquette is to argue for five pages about this kind of this. >:O
@Gaskon: Well put. I don't have much else to say here, so I'll just make the obligatory "Gaston" comparison and move on.
Right, enough backlogging. Now for my concerns.
One question, though: Consequence-free killing in a tower area? What happens if someone wanders into a hex without knowing the tower's PvP Window just opened up? Do they get a warning, or do they Learn A Valuable Lesson?
Also, do towers have any actual benefit before settlements are released?
Oh, another thought: This confirms in my mind that we will have markers from day one to show who someone is aligned with.
By the way, something worth considering: The three big groups aren't jerks. They're members of this community, and if they act like jerks, you can come on here and shame them. If they start crushing lots of small guys, they start getting ugly looks and making enemies. Plus, they, like, probably won't do that just because they like the community.
But the three main groups aren't even playing jerks. I really wouldn't worry.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
Will the settlement templates allow for balanced or multirole development, or will each settlement have to specialize in just one character role?
Can players change their settlement's template, or is that a permanent one -time choice?
Will the settlement template model have any lasting effects post-Great Cataclysm, or do we start from scratch at that point?
Sorry guys, lots of meetings today so just now getting to answer questions.
Settlement templates generally cover two roles, or there is a crafting focused one.
Template is permanent once chosen.
Template will likely have some effect on post-Great Catastrophe starter settlement buildings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Towers have a PvP window. When the window is open, the Hex the Tower is in does not inflict Reputation penalties for PvP. While the window is open there is a capture area near the tower, probably outlined by a wall or similar structure. Standing in that area gives your company points towards controlling the tower; the first company to cross a certain threshold gains control of the tower. If you are defending a tower you control, you lower everyone elses points for each person in the control area.Will multiple companies from the same settlement be competing against each other? It seems like support from the sponsoring settlement could well end up being counter-productive to the settlement's interests as a whole if this is the case.
I would like to see control be established based on cumulative settlement effort, with company control awarded based on the percentage of support a given company put in towards the effort of the settlement as a whole.
Can a company control more than one tower?
Did I miss a goblin post addressing this in the last couple pages?