Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great blog! I was worried it would be too long in EE until real warfare escalated it seems GW was too.
Will settlements keep thier progress when towers are wiped and proper settlement controls are implemented? Or will everyone start on the same footing regardless of EE success?
Can individual companies control more than one tower at a time for its settlement?
Is the PvP window liner in increase ( like 1 hour per tower controlled) or more algebraic?
Thanks for the changes guys Im really excited for EE now more than ever!
Settlements will basically get a "Score" based on their progress and will get an adjusted starting position based on their average tower holdings over the course of the War of Towers and will get starting buildings in their settlement based on this. This won't be a one to one conversion, like we controlled 8 hexes so now we control 8 hexes. It will be more like we controlled 8 hexes so now we have a keep, a bank, a level 1 wizard facility, a level fighter facility, a level 1 war wizard facility, a level 1 dreadnaught facility, etc, instead of just a keep.
Companies will probably be able to control multiple towers. Long term companies will have hard making multiple POIs efficient, but we don't have all the functionality that goes into that math so for now we'll have them control multiple towers.
PvP window is more algebraic currently.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
I second Guurzak's questions about how this will affect our settlements once we do start upgrading our settlements with resources.
Also, as Ryan has indicated that many of these towers will transfer into POI's (or whatever they end up being called) will the control that we establish now have any effect when they are transformed?
Or will that transformation start before Beta starts?
Honestly we don't really care at this stage what they look like. If we wanted to we could make this "War of the Taverns" but that doesn't sound as cool. Some of the territory that may be up for grabs in the War of Towers will right next door to post-land grab claimable settlements, and I don't want to kneecap those guys out of the gate by having their closest hexes claimed, so we'll probably give people some POIs based on their "Score" starting with the hexes closest to your settlement, but our hope is to do a mix of POIs and settlement upgrades. And of course a large part of this will depend on how the POI and settlement management tech comes online schedule wise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not speaking for any policy that T7V has, in fact we have only just started talking about the Tower game on our private forums.
But I'm pretty confident that T7V will not go around squashing the little guys without a good reason. Actually with Phaeros location, we have access to some very easily defended Towers beyond our adjacent ones that might make it unnecessary to get more Towers than we need.
But I can also see, T7V helping some of our neighbors secure their Towers. TEO probably wouldn't need any help with their numbers. KotC has good numbers too. But if the mechanics allow it, I could see us helping Hammerfall and Blackwood Glade securing their Towers. This would be just helping friends. Not necessarily an alliance. I leave that stuff to the diplomats and our leaders.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
If one of the Big 3 gives up their spot, what happens to that spot in the Land Rush? Also would the request that members that voted for one of the Big 3 to still vote for that settlement as to not be counted twice, still be valid?
At that point they place like everyone else and follow the same rules as everyone else.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I have a few questions about this:
When you say more training do you mean more characters can train at once in the same skill or will higher levels of the same skill open up for training.
When a settlement loses a tower how does that reduce the power of a character? Will skills have tier levels that are only available if the settlement holds enough towers to unlock them? How does this effect characters that already have learned the skill will they lose the ability until towers are recaptured?
Basically we have two concepts involved in the settlements, training and support.:
Training: You can actively learn skills from a settlement and settlements can only teach up to a certain level.
Support: Settlements also support skills, i.e. allow you to keep using skills if you have trained them. If a settlement trains something it automatically supports it as well.
For example, Torkville controls 6 towers and is a cleric/fighter settlement. It can train up to level 8 fighter and cleric related skills, feats, etc. It cannot train any wizard or rogue skills, but can support them up to level...say 5 (note I am pulling approxmiate numbers here, so if anyone tries to hold me to them in six months I will laugh and laugh). So people in the settlement can train and use up to level 8 skills for fighter and clerics, and if they train wizard and rogue skills somewhere else they can only use up to level 5 of those skills while being a member of that settlement. This is to stop people from bouncing around settlements, training everyone, and then being completely antisocial as they don't need any more training. But it does allow you to train classes other than those your settlement favors at allied settlements.
If you lose a tower and your settlement downgrades, it's training and support offerings go away, but this isn't immediate. You've got some time to fight back, or try and take some other tower, before the downgrade happens. Same sort of thing will happen in the final settlement system if you don't pay your upkeep on your training and support facilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ARGH!
So much confuzzlement!
The tower game is only for a "short" period, possibly lasting until EE not almost certainly not past the start of EE.
Small groups still have a lot of freedom to explore, PVE and wander about as they see fit.
If small groups do secure a settlement, there is NO mechanism to remove them until after the start of EE or possibly further into the EE timeline when GW develop and roll out the next installment of _actual_ settlement warfare. DO NOT FEAR!
I would suggest we actually chill out, see what the lucky alpha testers have available and then start to make meaningful commentary on their experiences to help collectively crowdforge a better tomorrow. Yes, we can still influence the direction of the game to align more to how we would like to see it progress. Crowdforging has been in since day 1 of the kickstarter (I think.)
To address another concern, if you have 6 people in your settlement, you use tactics and strategy to keep the towers you _want_. You don't have to secure all 6 adjacent towers on day 1 or even day 50. You can _choose_ which towers you want to keep (if any). All your planning to date should still have value and relevance. Things will change, yes they will.
We are at ALPHA, which is before EE (not sure if EE or OE is MVP) and we can expect a LOT of change between now and then.
Observe, engage, experience... why not actually try it when you do the the opportunity? Fear and uncertainty don't seem to be helping clarify what the big concerns are. As a PVE carebear, I see no reason to be concerned by what GW has proposed to the extent that I do not want to engage. I will try it when I get the opportunity and see if it meets my expectations. If it does I will play and enjoy it. If it does not, I will voice my concerns to GW on the forums and try to find support for my point of view, because we will be able to influence the development (to a small degree) likely for the entire lifecyle of the game. MVP = lean = continuous improvement = adapting + prioritisation = change is gonna happen.
TL;DR: We, the community, can influence change on some aspects of this game if we exercise our voice and find sufficient support.
- Jascolich, thread necromancer and bonecarver
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements will basically get a "Score" based on their progress and will get an adjusted starting position based on their average tower holdings over the course of the War of Towers and will get starting buildings in their settlement based on this. This won't be a one to one conversion, like we controlled 8 hexes so now we control 8 hexes. It will be more like we controlled 8 hexes so now we have a keep, a bank, a level 1 wizard facility, a level fighter facility, a level 1 war wizard facility, a level 1 dreadnaught facility, etc, instead of just a keep.
More towers = more starting buildings after the great destruction and denying your opponents towers will put them at a disadvantage after the the great destruction.
Any "nice" settlement that uses their forces to help others instead of accumulating towers will also be putting themselves at a starting disadvantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Settlements will basically get a "Score" based on their progress and will get an adjusted starting position based on their average tower holdings over the course of the War of Towers and will get starting buildings in their settlement based on this.
This is significant and acts as a strong incentive for warmongering. My previous statements about settlements only needing to hold enough towers to maintain adequate training no longer hold true. With this new information, it becomes clear that settlements will want to grab and hold as many towers as possible from the very first day of EE to maximize their Score, thus granting them a more fully fleshed out settlement when implemented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or not, ArchAnjel. Going from 6 towers to 7 towers to get that level 1 wizard facility might not be worth expanding the PvP vulnerability by an additional 1-2 hours every day for the next 3-5 months. Building that facility from scratch might take less effort once settlements are live. A settlement might better spend their time in other pursuits; every hour locked in PvP is an hour a character might not be gaining achievements, harvesting and banking resources, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The blog says that number of towers controls training...not support. Is it possible to grab the number of towers you need to train your folks until the next PVP window opens, train everyone who needs it "quickly", then stop worrying about tower-ownership until another tranche of folks needs training?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see us helping Hammerfall and Blackwood Glade securing their Towers. This would be just helping friends. Not necessarily an alliance. I leave that stuff to the diplomats and our leaders.
<hug>
You're drinking for free at the tavern. Once we have a tavern. And drinks.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
@Lee - So is it (either two of the 4 archetypes or crafting) or is it (4 archetypes + crafting and you pick 2 of the 5)?
It's more 2 classes and some basic to intermediate crafting to support those classes, or a settlement that is really pretty good at almost all crafting.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
The blog says that number of towers controls training...not support. Is it possible to grab the number of towers you need to train your folks until the next PVP window opens, train everyone who needs it "quickly", then stop worrying about tower-ownership until another tranche of folks needs training?
That's an omission, it affects both. So that plan would not work.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
I'm not speaking for any policy that T7V has, in fact we have only just started talking about the Tower game on our private forums.
But I'm pretty confident that T7V will not go around squashing the little guys without a good reason. Actually with Phaeros location, we have access to some very easily defended Towers beyond our adjacent ones that might make it unnecessary to get more Towers than we need.
But I can also see, T7V helping some of our neighbors secure their Towers. TEO probably wouldn't need any help with their numbers. KotC has good numbers too. But if the mechanics allow it, I could see us helping Hammerfall and Blackwood Glade securing their Towers. This would be just helping friends. Not necessarily an alliance. I leave that stuff to the diplomats and our leaders.
If you guys guarded someone from another settlement and let them stand in the capture area while you guarded the perimenter you could totally help some other settlement take a tower.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements will basically get a "Score" based on their progress and will get an adjusted starting position based on their average tower holdings over the course of the War of Towers and will get starting buildings in their settlement based on this.This is significant and acts as a strong incentive for warmongering. My previous statements about settlements only needing to hold enough towers to maintain adequate training no longer hold true. With this new information, it becomes clear that settlements will want to grab and hold as many towers as possible from the very first day of EE to maximize their Score, thus granting them a more fully fleshed out settlement when implemented.
This (PFO) has always been a game about settlement vs. settlement conflict / competition. It is a PvP game at its core.
This is further evidenced by the PvP Window making that hex consequence free (except for losing) PvP. It is important to note, the more towers you hold, the wider your PvP window becomes. The larger settlements will have to be concerned about over expansion.
Whereas a moderate sized settlement, with moderate goals, might prove to be more optimal.
The small sized settlements are screwed! Which has also been a design objective of the development team.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Settlements will basically get a "Score" based on their progress and will get an adjusted starting position based on their average tower holdings over the course of the War of Towers and will get starting buildings in their settlement based on this. This won't be a one to one conversion, like we controlled 8 hexes so now we control 8 hexes. It will be more like we controlled 8 hexes so now we have a keep, a bank, a level 1 wizard facility, a level fighter facility, a level 1 war wizard facility, a level 1 dreadnaught facility, etc, instead of just a keep.
More towers = more starting buildings after the great destruction and denying your opponents towers will put them at a disadvantage after the the great destruction.
Any "nice" settlement that uses their forces to help others instead of accumulating towers will also be putting themselves at a starting disadvantage.
Our goal, as with many things, is to scale things to diminishing returns, so it is never a sure choice to take more towers. Getting your 1st tower gets you more than getting your 10th tower gets you more than getting your 20th tower, so you'll have to decide if the later towers are worth it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you guys guarded someone from another settlement and let them stand in the capture area while you guarded the perimenter you could totally help some other settlement take a tower.I'm not speaking for any policy that T7V has, in fact we have only just started talking about the Tower game on our private forums.
But I'm pretty confident that T7V will not go around squashing the little guys without a good reason. Actually with Phaeros location, we have access to some very easily defended Towers beyond our adjacent ones that might make it unnecessary to get more Towers than we need.
But I can also see, T7V helping some of our neighbors secure their Towers. TEO probably wouldn't need any help with their numbers. KotC has good numbers too. But if the mechanics allow it, I could see us helping Hammerfall and Blackwood Glade securing their Towers. This would be just helping friends. Not necessarily an alliance. I leave that stuff to the diplomats and our leaders.
Sweet. I like that. Some positive playing there.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
So if all of the Big Three do decide to give up their settled hexes, does that mean that there are now 33 settlement hexes we are going to compete for or still just the original 30?
There will be 33 settlements coming out of the Land Rush regardless of what they choose. If those group choose to give up their slots their current settlements become up for grabs as AE etc.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
The 6 towers next to various land rush 2 sites are not black. Is there meaning to that, or just a color error? The towers around land rush 1 sites are black.
This collection of towers continues the theme that every land rush site has 6 neighbor sites that it is assumed to be able to own. However those hexes are not always easily accessible. The worst of those is -08.06 which is "next" to site T, but is actually nine steps to get there, including 3 hexes neighboring W (Golgotha). There are others examples, but this is the most extreme. If that site is in play, it belongs to W.
The color difference for towers is an oddity of the map program we use. Apparently our map has gotten so complex sometimes random changes creep in unexpectedly as the system seems to be having trouble handling it. If you see random icons turning white in some version of the map, that's why (white is the most common color that this happens with).
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Only one company can control of a single tower, so if you had two allied companies fighting to take it together whichever one had more people in the capture area for longer would end up getting control. So you may want one company to try and defend the perimeter while the one actually taking the tower stays inside the capture area. Their points don't add together, but also they don't impact each other. We may be able to do something with companies from the same settlement being counter together, but that's not currently the design so the comparative complexity of it is unknown to me, and I don't want to write more checks for programming to cash than I already have.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
So with this "supporting skills" thing. While training all skills is definitely impossible will it be possible to provide "maintenance" to all skills?
To all class skills? Yes, but not an peak effectiveness. A fighter/cleric settlement will not be able to support as high as level wiaard or rogue as settlements that train those, but the more towers they have the higher the support level is.
Crafting support is going to be harder to come by; you'll likely be able to cover the craft skills your classes cares about, but you'll have to trade for other gear with other settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
The flip side is that after you lose a tower your opponent might be able to choose a pvp window that is most unfavorable for you.
However, if someone else is roaming looking for towers, odds are they've already at least grabbed the local six. As such, they aren't likely to have a very small PvP Window.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we wanted to we could make this "War of the Taverns" but that doesn't sound as cool.Then we agree to disagree, because that sounds AWESOME!
Obviously, as your number of taverns increases your 'sobriety window' shrinks and it becomes more difficult to maintain those taverns...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, if someone else is roaming looking for towers, odds are they've already at least grabbed the local six. As such, they aren't likely to have a very small PvP Window.
I don;t believe they've given any data in length of pvp window vs. towers controlled yet so for all we know 6 towers could = 2 hours of pvp or 20.
Like so many other things we need more info which will hopefully come out during the alpha phase as they actually get to test this stuff out.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Ok. Really. I cant say this enough times so I hope I make it clear this time:
Towers are owned by COMPANIES.
A settlement with 6 towers MUST HAVE 6 ALLIED COMPANIES.
Therefore a settlement will have SIX COMPANIES to defend those SIX towers.
If your group wins a settlement in the land rush it comes with NO FREE TOWERS. Your company can capture one, and then you MUST make alliances with AT LEAST FIVE other companies to secure your other 5 adjacent towers.
This BENEFITS small companies and is an absurdly beneficial arrangement for the really small companies that happen to win a settlement in the land rush. There is NO WAY a small company of 5, 10, 15 people can hold a settlement in the real, full game. The ONLY scenario in which they can do so is in the land rush. If they do not gather members and alliances between now and the full system they will not survive. War of the towers forces alliances and will hopefully make this easier for both companies and settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some things it would help to know:
- How the length of the open window will be calculated
- What (if any) advantage the defenders receive
- What (if any) the penalty is for holding hexes discontinuous from your own settlement
- How often (if at all) a company can change allegiances in a day (i.e. friendly mercenaries to control towers?) (Not that there will be much to pay them with, but perhaps negotiated against a future (i.e., can a troop of the UNC hold my tower in the morning and Tavernhold’s in the evening?
Thanks for the clarification, Tork. I think a lot of us were figuring a big group would basically grab its Towering Tower Ring solo. At least, I was. ;P
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
AN UPDATE (16:30 Thursday the 19th)
We've decided that it would be best to begin the War of Towers after a week of Early Enrollment so that players have a chance to get the software configured and learn basics about how the game works before having to worry about Tower control.
So, follow-up question: What's to stop a big group like TEO from just splitting into, as another put it, TEO Alpha, TEO Beta, TEO Charlie?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
AN UPDATE (16:30 Thursday the 19th)
We've decided that it would be best to begin the War of Towers after a week of Early Enrollment so that players have a chance to get the software configured and learn basics about how the game works before having to worry about Tower control.
How is this going to work with the people coming in for month two? There have to be a few 'guilds' that are made up of mostly Month 2 backers. Are they going to be coming into a world where everything is already claimed?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for the clarification, Tork. I think a lot of us were figuring a big group would basically grab its Towering Tower Ring solo. At least, I was. ;P
I don't think that's said at all. At the very least, a large company can easily break into groups of 20 or 30 for the duration of the Tower Wars
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
AN UPDATE (16:30 Thursday the 19th)
We've decided that it would be best to begin the War of Towers after a week of Early Enrollment so that players have a chance to get the software configured and learn basics about how the game works before having to worry about Tower control.
That is, at least, a minor a relief.
I don't really have a problem with it, but it doesn't seem like "an absurdly beneficial arrangement" for the small companies. Maybe a slightly tidy one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...splitting into, as another put it, TEO Alpha, TEO Beta, TEO Charlie?That's *precisely* what they'll have to do, because TEO right now--182 members strong--can hold only one Tower.
Well, that only makes sense after all. Who could expect a large group of people, united in purpose under a common flag, to compete with hodgepodge collections of lone wolves banded together out of sheer necessity?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Just to clarify a thing that seems obvious to us but may not be obvious to you.
Settlements are not Companies and Companies are not Settlements.
Lets say we have the Settlement of Ryanhome.
The members of Ryanhome are potentially also members of Companies. They need not be members of the same Company. They may be in Companies with characters who are not members of Ryanhome.
Ryanhome may be indirectly controlling Towers via Companies that are comprised of characters who are not members of Ryanhome. Characters who are members of Ryanhome may be in Companies that are controlling Towers that are indirectly supported by a Settlement other than Ryanhome.
Companies are not Settlements. Settlements are not Companies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to clarify a thing that seems obvious to us but may not be obvious to you.
Settlements are not Companies and Companies are not Settlements.
Lets say we have the Settlement of Ryanhome.
The members of Ryanhome are potentially also members of Companies. They need not be members of the same Company. They may be in Companies with characters who are not members of Ryanhome.
Ryanhome may be indirectly controlling Towers via Companies that are comprised of characters who are not members of Ryanhome. Characters who are members of Ryanhome may be in Companies that are controlling Towers that are indirectly supported by a Settlement other than Ryanhome.
Companies are not Settlements. Settlements are not Companies.
So what happens when a company comprised of members that belong to 2 different settlements capture a tower?
Personally, I'd assume they just can't.
EDIT: Whoops, misread your post. What Bringslite said/"will say".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what happens when a company comprised of members that belong to 2 different settlements capture a tower?Just to clarify a thing that seems obvious to us but may not be obvious to you.
Settlements are not Companies and Companies are not Settlements.
Lets say we have the Settlement of Ryanhome.
The members of Ryanhome are potentially also members of Companies. They need not be members of the same Company. They may be in Companies with characters who are not members of Ryanhome.
Ryanhome may be indirectly controlling Towers via Companies that are comprised of characters who are not members of Ryanhome. Characters who are members of Ryanhome may be in Companies that are controlling Towers that are indirectly supported by a Settlement other than Ryanhome.
Companies are not Settlements. Settlements are not Companies.
You can only belong to one company that is directly tied to a specific settlement.
Edit: I believe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what happens when a company comprised of members that belong to 2 different settlements capture a tower?Just to clarify a thing that seems obvious to us but may not be obvious to you.
Settlements are not Companies and Companies are not Settlements.
Lets say we have the Settlement of Ryanhome.
The members of Ryanhome are potentially also members of Companies. They need not be members of the same Company. They may be in Companies with characters who are not members of Ryanhome.
Ryanhome may be indirectly controlling Towers via Companies that are comprised of characters who are not members of Ryanhome. Characters who are members of Ryanhome may be in Companies that are controlling Towers that are indirectly supported by a Settlement other than Ryanhome.
Companies are not Settlements. Settlements are not Companies.
A member of a sponsored company can only belong to the settlement that sponsors that company. So no different settlements within one company. Only a sponsored company can control a Tower.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I asked this once but it got buried.
What if you belong to multiple companies?
Will you always count as your primary or once your primary has a tower under control if you stand in another capture circle are you gaining points for your secondary?
Can a group be in 3 companies all tied to the same settlement, thus having 1 group (if its large enough) pull 3 towers (one for the primary company, one for the secondary company, and one for their third company)?
edit-great minds warstein...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...can we capture a tower under each of these companies...
That seems to come back to the question, posed at least once earlier, of what happens if a mixed group of folks, perhaps all sharing a second Company--but not a first--come to a Tower? GW needs to fill in the answer, as there's none obvious in the info given us so far.
Things moved so incredibly fast in this thread, for a time, that I may've missed what we're looking for.
