Goblinworks Blog: The War of the Towers


Pathfinder Online

251 to 300 of 622 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

So there will be a mechanic to attribute the benefits of a tower over to Torkshawpia held by "Company X of Ryanhome" if Company X desires this?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Cal B wrote:
Lee Hammock wrote:
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.

So this does, in fact, mean real, enduring, consequences to settlements for PvP results beginning on Day 1 of EE.

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.

It's only a disadvantage if they go it alone after the Tower Wars end. Otherwise they've acquired potential allies of higher power.

Goblin Squad Member

Aet Kard Warstein wrote:

We can belong to 3 companies. Do all three companies need to be from the same settlement?

can we capture a tower under each of these companies, or only 1?

You can belong to 3 companies, but only one of them can be a sponsored company. I could be wrong, but I believe only your sponsored company can control a tower.

Goblin Squad Member

I am glad to see that the UNC is ahead of the curve on having multiple companies within Aragon already.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Lee Hammock wrote:
Darcnes wrote:
Quote:
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.

I would suggest that you group all companies associated with a settlement together as "defenders".

Otherwise I expect to see the outcome where a company associated with the same settlement as the 'defending' company takes control of lots of towers while the 'defending' company guards the perimeter from genuine opponents. (At least, I'm assuming that capturing a tower prevents anyone else from capturing it that day.)

Goblin Squad Member

My guess is that a Company that controls a Tower can pledge that Tower to any Settlement on the map, even while the Company Members could be Members of multiple other Settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Do we know if you have to live in the same settlement where your Sponsored Company is chartered?

Goblin Squad Member

I think it may be an unnecessary assumption that a Tower-Controlling Company is functionally equivalent to a Sponsored Company.

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:


A settlement with 6 towers MUST HAVE 6 ALLIED COMPANIES.
Therefore a settlement will have SIX COMPANIES to defend those SIX towers.

So basically because of an arbitrary rule for a stop gap measure because you want to rush a vastly incomplete and defective product out the door for a quick money grab you are going to force what should be the backbone of your game, large player groups, to splinter and play "stupid company tricks" in order to satisfy this meaningless and arbitrary requirement...

shoot yerself in the foot much??

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:

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.

Yes, that seems to be a highly confusing issue. It doesn't help that other terms, such as guild, are being used occasionally (e.g. in the land-rush process, but also during the 2nd kickstarter, where the crowdforger guild pledge level promised "Patrons at this level will be invited to join Early Enrollment as a guild of six in the order that they pledged this level. Patron guilds will receive a Guild Starter Pack of in-game items, and have the right to reserve their guild name." Is that that guild same thing that's now called a company? Or landrush guild? Or something else?)

Let me see, if I got the organisational structure right (and ask for a few clarifications along the way):

- The general organisational structure is PC<company<settlement(<kingdom)
- As a newbie, I start play as a single PC.
- If I meet a few like-minded others, we can group together to form a company (Questions: Are there any limits to company-size? Is this supposed to be more like an adventuring party (4-6 PCs), a military platoon (20-50 PCs) or a map-spanning conglomerate (100+ PCs)? Or any of these? Can I be a 1-PC company? What do I have to do to start a company, i.e. buy a "guild starter kit", or just register with some in-game registrar. Can I be in several companies at once? Can I change them easily?).
- In the towers game, such a company can win and maintain control over a single tower (Possible problems if you can be in multiple companies? Can a company surrender ownership, e.g. by winning a new tower while stil in control of another?)
- If our company would like a permanent "home base", with support structures, etc., we can chose to become affiliated with a settlement, or after OE conquer one or start our own (Is a settlement-affiliated company the same thing that's called a chartered company in the land rush? How do we affiliate? And how do we disaffiliate again? Who owns/controls the settlement, and how does ownership shift to someone else? Can we be affiliated with more than one settlement?)
- This affiliation provides members of our company with the benefits of the settlement, e.g. support structures, while providing the settlement with control of "our" tower. If we leave, we lose the support, but keep "ownership" of the tower, while the settlement loses control over the tower.

Is that correct, so far?

Apparently, an individual PC can also be a direct member in a settlement, regardless of his membership in a company, or that company's affiliation with a settlement. Which one of those is the decisive membership for the PC being supported by settlement structures? If it's PC membership in the settlement, what incentive does a company have to affiliate with a settlement, especially if the companies members are individual members in several different settlements?

I apologize, if all this is clearly stated somewhere and I've just missed it, but at this point, the entire structure/membership thing has me very confused, and I bet I'm not the only one. Thx in advance for taking the time to help me out :-).

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lee Hammock wrote:
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.

Maybe to you it doesn't sound cool, but I would love a "War of the Taverns" game.

Goblin Squad Member

@albadeon, I'll take a shot at answering some of your questions:

Quote:

Let me see, if I got the organisational structure right (and ask for a few clarifications along the way):

- The general organisational structure is PC<company<settlement(<kingdom)

Correct. One minor clarification, there are actually two types of companies; Sponsored Companies are those directly affiliated with a Settlement and Companies, which do not need to be affiliated with a Settlement.

Quote:
- As a newbie, I start play as a single PC.

Correct.

Quote:
- If I meet a few like-minded others, we can group together to form a company

Correct, or join an existing Company.

Quote:
(Questions: Are there any limits to company-size?

No hard limits. There is a de-facto limit of 50, which is the number where the benefits of mroe members significantly diminish.

Quote:
Is this supposed to be more like an adventuring party (4-6 PCs), a military platoon (20-50 PCs) or a map-spanning conglomerate (100+ PCs)? Or any of these?

See above; more like a platoon.

Quote:
Can I be a 1-PC company?

Yes, but you would not be very effective at it.

Quote:
What do I have to do to start a company, i.e. buy a "guild starter kit", or just register with some in-game registrar.

Dunno.

Quote:
Can I be in several companies at once?

You can be in one (1) ; Sponsored Company and up to two (2) additional Companies

Quote:
Can I change them easily?).

Yes.

Quote:
- In the towers game, such a company can win and maintain control over a single tower

Correct.

Quote:
(Possible problems if you can be in multiple companies? Can a company surrender ownership, e.g. by winning a new tower while stil in control of another?)

Dunno.

I hope that helps!

CEO, Goblinworks

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@albadeon: close

The sequence of social structures is:

solo -> ad hoc party -> Company -> Sponsored Company -> Settlement -> Nation

The current plan is that you can be a member of up to 3 Companies, one of which may be a Sponsored Company.

"Guild" has no meaning in the context of the game. We're going to let people who bought the Crowdforger Guild Rewards reserve a Company name.

Within the context of War of Towers I don't think we've decided if sponsorship means anything. It may be simpler to just let the controller of a Company that controls a Tower pick a Settlement to support and not worry about trying to implement a more formal relationship between Company and Settlement.

I think we're going to take a hard look at the issue of characters in multiple companies as that relates to War of Towers. Call those issues tbd at the moment.

In a more evolved state, the objective is for Companies to be critical to the operation of a Settlement's logistics system. Companies hold and manage Outposts and Points of Interest. Outposts and Points of Interest drive development of Settlements. So establishing the links between the Companies that control desirable Outposts and PoIs will be a critical function of Settlement management. But none of that infrastructure will be in the game for a while. We'd like the Company element of the War of Towers to help give some direction to players to understanding that there will be strong and important links between Settlements and Companies before the logistics systems are implemented.

Goblin Squad Member

What Ryan said ...... ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Summersnow wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:


A settlement with 6 towers MUST HAVE 6 ALLIED COMPANIES.
Therefore a settlement will have SIX COMPANIES to defend those SIX towers.

So basically because of an arbitrary rule for a stop gap measure because you want to rush a vastly incomplete and defective product out the door for a quick money grab you are going to force what should be the backbone of your game, large player groups, to splinter and play "stupid company tricks" in order to satisfy this meaningless and arbitrary requirement...

shoot yerself in the foot much??

Really??

What part of settlements are made up of multiple companies did you not understand? I believe Lee or Stephen recently said a good number of companies to have is 8 plus another 100 support personnel for a total of 500. 500 citizens is enough to have 10 full sized companies.

The Land Rush has been designed to encourage the smaller companies to merge with the top 33 settlements. Many of us were open enough to allow for groups that joined our settlements to maintain their own identity, and this we have multiple companies.

Goblin Squad Member

Summersnow wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:


A settlement with 6 towers MUST HAVE 6 ALLIED COMPANIES.
Therefore a settlement will have SIX COMPANIES to defend those SIX towers.

So basically because of an arbitrary rule for a stop gap measure because you want to rush a vastly incomplete and defective product out the door for a quick money grab you are going to force what should be the backbone of your game, large player groups, to splinter and play "stupid company tricks" in order to satisfy this meaningless and arbitrary requirement...

shoot yerself in the foot much??

Every big group was always going to be split into 'small' companies, even within a settlement of several large groups, because the influence system has a 50 member limit before diminishing returns.

The only mechanic that is going against everything else is the landrush, with its 'biggest wins' methodology.

Goblin Squad Member

@albadeon, I'm a little fuzzier on these but I think this is mostly correct:

Quote:
- If our company would like a permanent "home base", with support structures, etc., we can chose to become affiliated with a settlement, or after OE conquer one or start our own (Is a settlement-affiliated company the same thing that's called a chartered company in the land rush? How do we affiliate?

Probably will depend upon the Settlement and their requirements to be Sponsored.

Quote:
And how do we disaffiliate again?

Again probably something the individual Settlement would specify.

Quote:
Who owns/controls the settlement, and how does ownership shift to someone else?

The individual Settlement will specify its organizational structure, gvt., etc..

Quote:
Can we be affiliated with more than one settlement?)

A Company can only be Sponsored by one (1) Settlement (actually I am inferring on this one, don't recall a specific discussion on this point).

Quote:
- This affiliation provides members of our company with the benefits of the settlement, e.g. support structures, while providing the settlement with control of "our" tower. If we leave, we lose the support, but keep "ownership" of the tower, while the settlement loses control over the tower.

Dunno.

Goblin Squad Member

While I appreciate the innovation, my first impression leaves me with 2 main concerns.

First...

Tork Shaw wrote:
A settlement with 6 towers MUST HAVE 6 ALLIED COMPANIES . . . Your company can capture one, and then you MUST make alliances with AT LEAST FIVE other companies to secure your other 5 adjacent towers.

...seems like a pointless hoop to make companies jump through, as they are obviously just going to break into smaller companies to hold more towers. Instead of TEO holding 6 towers, TEO 1-6 will each hold one tower. Why bother requiring this?

TEO Archanjel covered my 2nd concern, regarding this "score" that counts your average towers held and impacts your settlement down the road:

TEO ArchAnjel wrote:
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 score disincentivizes thinking "How can we coordinate tower management with our allies, to make sure we all have enough towers to meet our collective training needs" and instead pushes us more in the "Let's hoard as many towers as we can defend" direction.

Before seeing mention of this score, my first thought was something like "OK, we all have 6 towers right around our own settlement, and those will presumably provide for enough levels of training for probably quite some time. We can focus on defending those, and helping our allies defend theirs. Then as more towers become required, we can add them as necessary and help our allies take and hold them as necessary."

With the score introduced, it seems a lot more "every man for himself".

Please note before anyone replies that I'm not saying it ELIMINATES the benefits of working with your allies. It just pushes the balance more away from cooperation and more toward competition - with your neighbors and allies - than seems desirable.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Goblinworks,

You guys need to get your story straight before you post, please. You're sending out mixed signals.

Lee Hammock wrote:
Companies will probably be able to control multiple towers.
Tork Shaw wrote:

A settlement with 6 towers MUST HAVE 6 ALLIED COMPANIES.

Therefore a settlement will have SIX COMPANIES to defend those SIX towers.

These two statements stand opposed. Either a settlement needs six companies to control six towers OR a company can control multiple towers. Which is it, please?

Goblin Squad Member

The score...might be problematic, but I think it depends on how they answer your first point. If it's not super practical for the larger groups to simply roll up all the towers they can, than the smaller groups might be able to band together to get a better score than if they all fought each other.

If the towers aren't considered a scarce resource on at least some level, than why bother putting them in as something to fight over at all?

Goblin Squad Member

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:

While I appreciate the innovation, my first impression leaves me with 2 main concerns.

This score disincentivizes thinking "How can we coordinate tower management with our allies, to make sure we all have enough towers to meet our collective training needs" and instead pushes us more in the "Let's hoard as many towers as we can defend" direction.

Who would have guessed. Being surrounded by your friends in a game with scarce resources will force you to make tough choices about advancing your own group or your "friends".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you can't work with your allies to help gain control of towers, because the temptation to further yourself is too high, then you couldn't really depend on those allies to begin with. There are going to be resources after the tower game is gone that you'll need to work with each other for as well.

Goblin Squad Member

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:

While I appreciate the innovation, my first impression leaves me with 2 main concerns.

First...

Tork Shaw wrote:
A settlement with 6 towers MUST HAVE 6 ALLIED COMPANIES . . . Your company can capture one, and then you MUST make alliances with AT LEAST FIVE other companies to secure your other 5 adjacent towers.
...seems like a pointless hoop to make companies jump through, as they are obviously just going to break into smaller companies to hold more towers. Instead of TEO holding 6 towers, TEO 1-6 will each hold one tower. Why bother requiring this?

I'm not sure of other groups, but based on what we know of the game so far (a 50-character company can hold 1 POI well, or 2 POIs badly; company Influence is limited if the company goes over 50 characters; and other bits), TEO would have to break into multiple companies anyway. In our internal discussions, TEO is an organization somewhere between a sponsored company and a settlement (one that Ryan doesn't list), because we fully expect that the settlement Brighthaven will incorporate lots of companies that aren't TEO, but the TEO companies intend to maintain their identity as such.

So yes, we'll split up into multiple companies, but we're also always willing to incorporate small independent companies all through this process and the tower wars.

Edit to add: I fully expect that most of the other settlements also are willing to incorporate smaller companies. Certainly all of the settlements that survive into OE will.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Phyllain wrote:
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:

While I appreciate the innovation, my first impression leaves me with 2 main concerns.

This score disincentivizes thinking "How can we coordinate tower management with our allies, to make sure we all have enough towers to meet our collective training needs" and instead pushes us more in the "Let's hoard as many towers as we can defend" direction.

Who would have guessed. Being surrounded by your friends in a game with scarce resources will force you to make tough choices about advancing your own group or your "friends".

There is a heavy element of cooperation in PFO also, you know. Nations require cooperation. Getting access to training for all your members requires cooperation. Having all the necessary resources for your settlement requires cooperation. My point is that this tower system doesn't reflect the cooperation element to the same degree it adds the competition element.

Goblin Squad Member

Sure it does. If you want a balanced settlement of all classes and crafting abilities, you have to cooperate with each other. If you choose Fighter/Cleric and warmonger all the towers, you're not going to have anyone to train Rogue/Wizard for you or the corresponding crafts.

Resources are the only thing missing from the equation. If someone is too selfish to be an ally, they were already going to be too selfish to be an ally.

Goblin Squad Member

Crash_00 wrote:

Sure it does. If you want a balanced settlement of all classes and crafting abilities, you have to cooperate with each other. If you choose Fighter/Cleric and warmonger all the towers, you're not going to have anyone to train Rogue/Wizard for you or the corresponding crafts.

Resources are the only thing missing from the equation. If someone is too selfish to be an ally, they were already going to be too selfish to be an ally.

Yup, this much is very true. I may be overestimating the impact of this "score" at first glance. I could probably be convinced in either direction with a little more information.

Goblin Squad Member

The key point to remember is that each additional tower gives you less than the tower before it did. If you've got you six surrounding towers, a couple more towers, and are taking the starting towers from an "ally", you're gaining far less than they would from it. It's the opposite of a neighborly thing.

The numbers aren't out yet, and they may matter to some, but generally two strong settlements being allies would be better than one strong settlement with a weak ally.

In the second case, assuming that other settlement has anything at all the strong settlement wants, it's only a matter of time before it would get torn open in a siege anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

A little something for people to keep in mind when thinking of the "score". Sure you can end up averaging 10 towers and end up with 5 extra builds (made up number of course)on day one of the normal POI supported settlement, but it also means you will have 5 extra buildings to maintain without any of the resources built up yet. (POI = mine, farm, etc...)

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
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.

Some of that would be accurate if we had any way to contact the companies that are not already in the settlement count. but we don't. Even for those that do have websites, most of them are not contactable. You can't co-operate with someone who you can't talk to.

It does benefit them to the extent that if they decide to abandon their settlement, they have something to offer another settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Kromac wrote:
A little something for people to keep in mind when thinking of the "score". Sure you can end up averaging 10 towers and end up with 5 extra builds (made up number of course)on day one of the normal POI supported settlement, but it also means you will have 5 extra buildings to maintain without any of the resources built up yet. (POI = mine, farm, etc...)

A large group will have no trouble filling their six surrounding hexes on the day they need to. Any new players arriving in the intervening months will have little choice but to favour the larger groups, as they will have a solid core for training and development.

Goblin Squad Member

A company that comes out of the land rush with a settlement and decides not to play the game of towers at all will still, post cataclysm, have a head start on settlement development over every other group in the game except the other 32 land rush winners.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A company that comes out of the game of towers with less than the other 32 groups will not be able to attract enough new participants to hold the settlement any length of time at all.

The smallest groups needed to have something to offer during early enrollment in order to attract new players who are not on the paizo boards and were not aware of the landrush. Starting with the same resources/buildings but in a smaller group where new people could have a greater chance of standing out was a draw. Starting with one or two or three buildings and 10 or 30 people while a larger group has six or eight or ten buildings and 350 people and the day one ability to offer better training does not create much of a draw.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you imagine that there will never be more than 33 settlements in the game? Do you think that being the 33rd best settlement when open access starts and the real land rush begins is somehow worse than having to clear a hex and start a new settlement completely from scratch?

Goblin Squad Member

Cal B wrote:

A company that comes out of the game of towers with less than the other 32 groups will not be able to attract enough new participants to hold the settlement any length of time at all.

The smallest groups needed to have something to offer during early enrollment in order to attract new players who are not on the paizo boards and were not aware of the landrush. Starting with the same resources/buildings but in a smaller group where new people could have a greater chance of standing out was a draw. Starting with one or two or three buildings and 10 or 30 people while a larger group has six or eight or ten buildings and 350 people and the day one ability to offer better training does not create much of a draw.

I don't get the impression that the land rush is designed for there to be "small" settlements of 10 or even 30. If there are roughly 8000 EE players, that means there is an average of 242 characters for each settlement.

Either try to hold onto your settlement hex until the last week of the Land Rush or join a larger settlement sooner.

Goblin Squad Member

I think the scoring will not really matter, one way or another. Big groups will be able to control the POI's needed to grow their settlement when that phase of the game goes live, with or without scoring. Smaller settlements will *need* to form alliances and perhaps offer training their neighbors don't. Settlements who are unsure of their ability might want to consider merging with other smaller settlements if they still really want to run a settlement independently, or consider joining a larger group that will allow them to maintain their own culture and identity. To my knowledge, Freevale, Aragon, Brighthaven, Aeturnum, and Golgotha all have policies in effect allowing for groups to join and maintain their own identity (that is by no means an exhaustive list, feel free to advertise your own settlements).

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
I think the scoring will not really matter, one way or another. Big groups will be able to control the POI's needed to grow their settlement when that phase of the game goes live, with or without scoring. Smaller settlements will *need* to form alliances and perhaps offer training their neighbors don't. Settlements who are unsure of their ability might want to consider merging with other smaller settlements if they still really want to run a settlement independently, or consider joining a larger group that will allow them to maintain their own culture and identity. To my knowledge, Freevale, Aragon, Brighthaven, Aeturnum, and Golgotha all have policies in effect allowing for groups to join and maintain their own identity (that is by no means an exhaustive list, feel free to advertise your own settlements).

It is not an exhaustive list by any means, good Sir Alexander! ;)

Goblin Squad Member

There are a lot of Settlements that hope to allow their companies independence. I know Keeper's Pass is another who want to assure any companies that join will keep their identities.

Goblin Squad Member

My two cents... As others have mentioned grabbing all the land for yourself sounds nice but really only let's you train two of the primary classes with related stuff with no advanced training for anything else. I believe there are 3 archetypes we can choose to build our settlements around? So the dreaded big settlements will try to establish an equilibrium with at least 2 others to maximize their access to all abilities. I suspect based on our community there are going to be at least 7 settlements that will be active in establishing themselves to their 6 core hexes and beyond. These settlements will limit some of the others growth but I think those smaller settlements will still be able to claim 2-3 a piece unless they just refuse to PvP. It sounds like even then these settlement would still allow a character training for the duration of this period but they would be forced to generalize rather than focusing on reaching the top of a class tree. My biggest concern is that if in fact one company holds 1 tower how are you going to balance those players attacking other towers? Do they lose their grip on their first spot? Are their actions neutral with regard to claiming additional towers but their presence will help an aligned company overwhelm a defenders resistance? I don't think this is a bad idea but it feels like there are at least a couple cycles of development needed to make sure this works as intended. Keep the details coming!

Goblin Squad Member

Doh, and the Keepers and Ozem's Vigil. Sorry guys, migraine slows down the old thinker. I owe you guys both a cookie once the game goes live.

Goblinworks Lead Game Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
TEO ArchAnjel wrote:

Goblinworks,

You guys need to get your story straight before you post, please. You're sending out mixed signals.

Lee Hammock wrote:
Companies will probably be able to control multiple towers.
Tork Shaw wrote:

A settlement with 6 towers MUST HAVE 6 ALLIED COMPANIES.

Therefore a settlement will have SIX COMPANIES to defend those SIX towers.
These two statements stand opposed. Either a settlement needs six companies to control six towers OR a company can control multiple towers. Which is it, please?

Yep, that's my fault, Tork's right.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
Doh, and the Keepers and Ozem's Vigil. Sorry guys, migraine slows down the old thinker. I owe you guys both a cookie once the game goes live.

Not really slighted. You would have to copy/paste a pretty large chunk of the LR2 groups to cover all that are looking for friends and willing to be so flexible.

I won't turn down a chance to try a "Brighthaven Biscotti or Butter Pecan" though. Rumors in the far north say they are sublime!

Goblin Squad Member

Lee Hammock wrote:

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.

This is the only really worrying thing that I have heard in this thread. I was under the impression that the level of the settlement is when the hyper-specialization would stop. The entire way that larger settlements have come together in the land rush has been predicated on there being specialized companies within the settlement catering to different roles. Is the intention that people should send their characters to different settlements depending on what they want to play? Or is it that some of the larger organizations should expect to need to take several settlements in order to support their community?

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
To my knowledge, Freevale, Aragon, Brighthaven, Aeturnum, and Golgotha all have policies in effect allowing for groups to join and maintain their own identity (that is by no means an exhaustive list, feel free to advertise your own settlements).

Reading Between the Lines (Canis Castrum) doesn't just allow players to retain their own identity, they also have full suffrage in settlement government. ;)

Sorry, you offered an opening for a shameless plug. I'll return to lurking this excellent commentary on tactics.

Goblin Squad Member

Saint Caleth wrote:
Lee Hammock wrote:

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.

This is the only really worrying thing that I have heard in this thread. I was under the impression that the level of the settlement is when the hyper-specialization would stop. The entire way that larger settlements have come together in the land rush has been predicated on there being specialized companies within the settlement catering to different roles. Is the intention that people should send their characters to different settlements depending on what they want to play? Or is it that some of the larger organizations should expect to need to take several settlements in order to support their community?

GW already said they don't want ONE settlement to be able to support itself. That goes for training along with resources.

Goblin Squad Member

In the long run player nations will allow you to capitalize on high level settlement specialization.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guurzak wrote:
Do you imagine that there will never be more than 33 settlements in the game? Do you think that being the 33rd best settlement when open access starts and the real land rush begins is somehow worse than having to clear a hex and start a new settlement completely from scratch?

I do. I think that until the map expands greatly, there will not be more than 33 settlements. And I think that within a few weeks of settlement to settlement combat, and until the map expands, there will be notably less than 33, probably less than, 20 discounting vassal states of a "kingdom" that exist only through it's continued tolerance as a means of supporting it. And that's as it should play out.

I was, however, hoping that a dozen of the smaller groups would get some settlement running experience that would make those settlements a valuable vassal, and give them the confidence to spread out later, with the map. Now I expect that when settlement to settlement combat opens, many of the 33 settlements will find themselves with approximately the same number of active people they have on day one, and will fold immediately. What I fear, is that even before that day, many of those people will have left the game in disillusion when their free time runs out.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
Smaller settlements will *need* to form alliances and perhaps offer training their neighbors don't. Settlements who are unsure of their ability might want to consider merging with other smaller settlements if they still really want to run a settlement independently, or consider joining a larger group that will allow them to maintain their own culture and identity.

Do you imagine that there is any small settlement on the list that actually has any idea what's going on that isn't trying very hard to do exactly that?

I don't know if there is any group, certainly not one outside the top five or so that wouldn't happily encourage any company to retain their own identity in exchange for some cooperation.

One issue is that of the 500 people who've voted that are not in one of the top dozen teams, virtually none have any way of being contacted. The ones that do are all hoping for miracles.

Goblin Squad Member

Well after getting some sleep I can think more coherently. Here are my observations – please correct me where I'm wrong.
At the day One in EE we will have some prefab settlements tuned to 2 roles out of 6 (Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Expert, Commoner). To advance our settlements we must seize and keep control of as much towers as possible. Main detriments for unlimited expansion will be competition from other settlements and widening of PvP window with increase of # of towers owned. During PvP window there will be no rep hits for PvP on these hexes for anyone. There will be no upkeep costs for your settlement structures. There will be no mechanical effects for your alignment and reputation at the start of EE. Nothing was said about escalations at the start of EE. So...
1. That means for me that in the time of PvP window you'll be effectively in the state of war against anyone who goes to your tower hex. In EVE this state is called NBSI (Not Blue – Shoot It!). Settlements can make alliances, but any stranger near your tower is probably a spy or enemy trying to do something against you. There's zero motivation to spare someone. And there's a good incentive to kill anyone not “blue” to you. Later there will be other mechanics of warfare which may allow other approaches. But in the first months NBSI policy will be well established - so good luck with changing the overall mood of the game once this mood is set.
2. At the start of EE you can do nothing else to advance your settlement save for TW (Tower Warfare) and making equipment to support such warfare. So any low-rep CE settlement with Crafter/Fighter specialization will hold as much towers as their numbers, love for PvP and free time allows them. And they will be probably best crafters in the game – good number of towers ensures that. Well maybe month or two later things will change, but for now being unemployed PvP fan is the best position to become a great in-game crafter :D
I can't say I can't bear this situation – I've seen worse. But for me PvP is necessary activity – not source of much fun. And DUST514 and Darkfall are already out. I'll appreciate greatly if PFO will offer me virtual environment different from these 2.
Again – correct me please if I've missed something.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
Doh, and the Keepers and Ozem's Vigil. Sorry guys, migraine slows down the old thinker. I owe you guys both a cookie once the game goes live.

Talnoguard would like a cookie.

White Chocolate Chip Macadamia Please.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tigari wrote:
GW already said they don't want ONE settlement to be able to support itself. That goes for training along with resources.

Yes, it always has gone for training. The support idea is what I don't really like, that your character would have to move their affiliation in order to keep using their skills after a certain point. I guess the intent is that someone would have characters in different companies and settlements depending on what types of characters they want to roll.

I kind of get the point, but it seems a little ham-handed and immersion breaking to send all the characters of a certain class packing from their home at a certian level because the settlement cannot support their skill use. On the plus side, it reinforces the importance of supra-national entities which I guess is a good bit of meaningful interaction.

251 to 300 of 622 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: The War of the Towers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.