Goblinworks Blog: The War of the Towers


Pathfinder Online

351 to 400 of 622 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

So a large group doesn't have to hold more towers than they can use, but can ride in, take the tower, release it and lock it up for an undetermined period of time?

How long a cool down?

Does it apply to expanding their open window during its cool down?

Does a settlement have to "accept" my company's allegiance, or can I declare for them and then take a tower?

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:

For the duration of the War of the Towers characters will only be able to be members of ONE company.

In the long run players can be members of 3 companies, but the War of the Towers will be over by then.

Well, that was unexpected and changes quite a bit of planning.

You may want to put that in the blog, because that is a very significant change to how things were set up.

I will admit we actually had 3 different possible solutions to the complexity of multiple company memberships. At the time of the blog multiple Tower ownership WAS permitted (in a form) but we can save on a bit of tech my simply restricting company membership to one company in the short term.

Please note, however, that in any case a player can only be a member of ONE sponsored company, and pledging a tower to a settlement would have been the equivalent of 'sponsorship'. The effect is almost identical, therefore, except that players can no longer be members of one sponsored company and two other 'social group' companies. You will unfortunately need to manage you non-mechanical social groups externally until after the war of the towers and band together in companies along territorial/alliance lines.

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
albadeon wrote:
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...

Lee and I are going to whip up a company/settlement (text) blog in the near future to cover all this. Much of this has been stated but its all mixed in across a bunch of blogs/posts/etc. Its probably valuable to consolidate this all into one place.

Goblin Squad Member

Tork , I didn’t read it that way at all, you said it was droppable. At that point my brain says it is uncontrolled, and uncontrolled = pvp window. Was under the impression the uncontrolled state was = to the pvp window and when that control is dropped the pvp window was open( not that the pvp window is tied to the timer to be controlled again in the future..)

So I guess the only follow up is, is this window that the tower remains in its flux state going to be hours or minutes?( if the timer is minutes then my question remains.. the same)

Goblinworks Game Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
How frequently is the "PVP window is open based on how many towers you have" factor recalculated? If it's immediately upon taking or losing a tower, we need to react one way; if it's each day at midnight (or the beginning of Redmond office-hours), another.

24 hours after capture/release.

I feel like I know where these questions are going. I think you are all asking about how a settlement and their allies could exploit the windows/benefits/pledges system to benefit their warfare agenda. I appreciate your smoke-tests and I completely understand why these are fun questions to ask, but do bear in mind that preventing exploits to these systems is sort of my angle - so I've already run the smoke through a couple of times. These systems are still in development so any numbers that come out will be tweaked up to and beyond implementation. I cant get them right first time - I'd like to say no one can - thats the nature of iterative game development.

That said, I believe the system to be sound/water-resistant, if not yet waterproof.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For much of my time here, I've gone out of my way to try to be welcoming, especially to players that are concerned about PvP, new to PvP, or even new to MMOs. Oftentimes, these players have been rather roughly treated and dismissed. I've always recognized their value to any Settlement. I'm happy to see others are finally catching on.


Well, I'm not catching on! So there!

I'm contrary!

I have nothing to contribute to the thread and do not want to admit it!

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
...I've already run the smoke through a couple of times.

I'm glad you've said it so politely, and I feel the need to apologise for giving you the impression that I'm looking for loopholes. I hope at least some readers have seen enough of my words to know that's far from my intent; I'm looking for appropriate, intended ways to accomplish the goals each group chooses to pursue, and--in my opinion--we can't do that without the answers I'm seeking.

Goblinworks Game Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gwalchmai ap Langolan wrote:

So a large group doesn't have to hold more towers than they can use, but can ride in, take the tower, release it and lock it up for an undetermined period of time?

How long a cool down?

Does it apply to expanding their open window during its cool down?

Does a settlement have to "accept" my company's allegiance, or can I declare for them and then take a tower?

Mechanically, yes. But when you get into the world you will see why this is wildly, wildly impractical.

A huge alliance however... That could be a formidable issue. And thats exciting. When The Empyrean Order, Talonguard, Keepers of the Circle, and The Seventh Veil all become best pals - then you have to worry.


Heck, I'd been taking that for granted. I think I even posted a couple times saying it. Looks like I just happened to guess right. ;D

Goblin Squad Member

If I am understanding this when my company captures a tower some sort of thing pops up asking us what settlement we want the tower to profit. We tell it and then it is ours, and those who wish to help, to guard during that settlement's open window phase.

Correct?

Goblin Squad Member

While you work on waterproofing the system, might we get an explanation of how 1 company claims 1 tower will then factor in that company helping attack another tower. Do they not count at all and just help pacify the area? I could also see some groups going for an exploit type system where they lock down towers then dump all but one player who is now a company of 1 with a tower and start a new company to continue rampaging. If there is no downtime between being in one company vs another this seems to open the door to zerg like behavior.

Goblinworks Game Designer

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:
...I've already run the smoke through a couple of times.
I'm glad you've said it so politely, and I feel the need to apologise for giving you the impression that I'm looking for loopholes. I hope at least some readers have seen enough of my words to know that's far from my intent; I'm looking for appropriate, intended ways to accomplish the goals each group chooses to pursue, and--in my opinion--we can't do that without the answers I'm seeking.

No apology necessary! I mostly am covering my back because I wont be able to answer every single use-case query. I diddnt want it to seem like if someone proposed an exploit and I never got back to them it was because we diddnt care. That can lead to table-flipping ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Is there a way to declare yourself a defender of a tower? So that two groups could help each other hold towers, for example Golgotha and Aeturnum. Golgotha has its PvP window set up, and Aeturnum has a few folks show up to help out. Is there a way for these characters to count as helping the defenders even if they are from a different company/settlement?

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TEO Malvius012 wrote:
While you work on waterproofing the system, might we get an explanation of how 1 company claims 1 tower will then factor in that company helping attack another tower. Do they not count at all and just help pacify the area? I could also see some groups going for an exploit type system where they lock down towers then dump all but one player who is now a company of 1 with a tower and start a new company to continue rampaging. If there is no downtime between being in one company vs another this seems to open the door to zerg like behavior.

After leaving a company a player must wait 24 hours before joining another. That is actually not War of the Towers specific and will most likely persist in the full game.

Companies cannot 'assist' each other in scoring points when capturing towers - they can only assist as combatants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think "killing attackers" is a good way for them to "count". ;)


Tork Shaw wrote:
do bear in mind that preventing exploits to these systems is sort of my angle

Which is exactly why I'm asking now, instead of waiting to find out.

But did you actually answer the question about whether a group could "force" ownership of a tower onto another group in order to widen their window?

Cause it would be good to see that possibility plugged.

Goblin Squad Member

Yep. Team A, go stand in the circle. Team B, stand outside the circle, and kill anyone who heads for the circle who isn't Team A.

We don't need any fancier cooperation mechanic than simple player coordination.

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TEO Alexander Damocles wrote:
Is there a way to declare yourself a defender of a tower? So that two groups could help each other hold towers, for example Golgotha and Aeturnum. Golgotha has its PvP window set up, and Aeturnum has a few folks show up to help out. Is there a way for these characters to count as helping the defenders even if they are from a different company/settlement?

I think I just covered this in an answer that I was typing while you were typing this :) No - allies trying to take a tower together will have to coordinate in a such a way that only the one they want to succeed earns points towards capture. This should be relatively easy because of the layout of the capture areas.

I should say - there are many, many additional systems we could add to WotT to allow alliances, more complex capture mechanics, mercenary play, etc. However, WotT is only going to last for a few months. This system is designed to be an introduction to settlement/PoI warfare in PFO. Its not perfect, its not comprehensive, but it wont be around for very long. It is designed to direct PvP play and to provide a platform for the alliances, politicking, and territory control mechanics that are the core of the PFO MMO.

Believe me I have a gazillion sketches of how we could make this more comprehensive and a thousand additional features we could add. We discussed many of them and their technical implications and decided that the minimal subset workable areas described in the blog. Each additional feature we add to WotT is time taken away from completing the final product and while some of these may seem super-trivial they tend to bring with them a rabbit hole of cornercases and UI requirements that make them unfeasible as part of a temporary system. Them's the breaks :/

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gwalchmai ap Langolan wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:
do bear in mind that preventing exploits to these systems is sort of my angle

Which is exactly why I'm asking now, instead of waiting to find out.

But did you actually answer the question about whether a group could "force" ownership of a tower onto another group in order to widen their window?

Cause it would be good to see that possibility plugged.

I'm not following... Could you phrase it as an example with 'group x does y, group b does z'? I'm not all that bright :/


I think I understand this. He posted about it early on—I didn't get it, either, until I noticed the context.

KCtown, the best town of all, has no towers. They're sticking to a closed PvP window while they assemble.

KoboldKompany, on the other hand, has just captured a tower. They seek to declare it to be captured for KCtown. Can they do this without KCtown's agreement? Can they give KCtown a tower without KCtown even wanting one?

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
Gwalchmai ap Langolan wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:
do bear in mind that preventing exploits to these systems is sort of my angle

Which is exactly why I'm asking now, instead of waiting to find out.

But did you actually answer the question about whether a group could "force" ownership of a tower onto another group in order to widen their window?

Cause it would be good to see that possibility plugged.

I'm not following... Could you phrase it as an example with 'group x does y, group b does z'? I'm not all that bright :/

Despicable Minions takes a tower, and pledges it to Righteous Bro's settlement. Righteous Bro's now have a larger PvP window, and thus makes their home towers more vulnerable.

(I'm guessing that's what he meant)

Goblinworks Game Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

One more quick point:

Lee mentioned yesterday that the success case for settlements in the WotT would be to win buildings at early enrollment. This is not quite true as written. I think Lee was suggesting that you get specific ROLE or CLASS buildings, but in fact the rewards will be support structures.

Just to confuse matters that doesnt refer to 'structures that support classes and skills' - we have been using the term 'support structures' before that system came in. These 'support structures' to which I am referring are actually things like statues and wells and grain silos - decorative or utilitarian structures that actually provide a very minor DI bonus instead of costing DI like normal settlement structures do.

This means that a settlement who does well in WotT will end up with a small bonus to their starting DI in EE. They will still need to manage the upkeep of these support structures to keep that DI bonus and they will still need to get their mitts on all the building materials to build whatever it is they want to make to fill their bonus DI.

In short, the advantage to settlements who do well in WotT is that they will start with the ability to build more structures on day one (ability, not the materials), and will therefore potentially be able to ramp up their settlement slightly faster than others.


Tork Shaw wrote:
I'm not following... Could you phrase it as an example with 'group x does y, group b does z'? I'm not all that bright :/

Company "A1" takes tower "1" way over on the opposite side of the map and declares it for settlement "NotTavernHold"

NotTavernHold doesn't want Tower "1", (They have towers "18" "19" and "20" which is all they want) but Company "A1" has just increased NotTavernHold's open window from 3 to 4 hours for Company "A2" to attack tower "18" which the two groups are fighting over.

Does NotTavernHold have any say in the matter, or are they powerless to refuse the "gift" which will make their lives difficult.

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I think I understand this. He posted about it early on—I didn't get it, either, until I noticed the context.

KCtown, the best town of all, has no towers. They're sticking to a closed PvP window while they assemble.

KoboldKompany, on the other hand, has just captured a tower. They seek to declare it to be captured for KCtown. Can they do this without KCtown's agreement? Can they give KCtown a tower without KCtown even wanting one?

Oh I see.

No. Pledges must be mutual. Just like settlement membership or company membership. All individual applications must all be 'accepted'*.

*you can all call me a liar when you hear about the option companies and settlements will one day have to offer 'open enrollment'.

Paizo Employee

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Marlagram wrote:
Nothing was said about escalations at the start of EE.

We've got six Escalations up and running already, and uninfected hexes spawn random encounters appropriate to their terrain type. There will be plenty of PvE combat available for those so inclined.

Goblin Squad Member

That's confusing. >_<

Tork, what language should we be using to clearly distinguish between "non-training buildings which prevent decay of trained abilities" and "decorative structures which carry small DI bonuses"?

Calling both "support" is bad, and you should feel bad.

Goblinworks Game Designer

By the way - Bob Settles is the newest designer at Goblinworks! He hasnt got his avatar/title sorted in the forums yet. He is handling the PvE side of things. PILE ON HIM.


Tork Shaw wrote:
*you can all call me a liar when you hear about the option companies and settlements will one day have to offer 'open enrollment'.

We'll accept that your answer is true for Tower Wars only.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I usually avoid posting things like this but the first thing I thought when reading "WotT" was "Wizards of the Toast".

I'm really sorry...

Goblinworks Game Designer

Guurzak wrote:

That's confusing. >_<

Tork, what language should we be using to clearly distinguish between "non-training buildings which prevent decay of trained abilities" and "decorative structures which carry small DI bonuses"?

Calling both "support" is bad, and you should feel bad.

I feel terrible. I cant tell you.

Lets crowd forge it! (eek!)

So currently structures that 'support' classes are called 'class support structures'. AND structures like fountains, statues, gardens, and silos which provide a bonus to DI are called 'support structures'.

I think it makes sense to keep 'support structures' as the term for things that support classes/skills/roles. So any strong feelings about what we should call the decorative/civilisation type structures that provide a DI bonus?

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tork Shaw wrote:
By the way - Bob Settles is the newest designer at Goblinworks! He hasnt got his avatar/title sorted in the forums yet. He is handling the PvE side of things. PILE ON HIM.

Man, we haven't even launched yet and the devs are already throwing each other to to the wolves. I suppose we should expect this from Goblins. =P

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:

I feel terrible. I cant tell you.

Lets crowd forge it! (eek!)

So currently structures that 'support' classes are called 'class support structures'. AND structures like fountains, statues, gardens, and silos which provide a bonus to DI are called 'support structures'.

I think it makes sense to keep 'support structures' as the term for things that support classes/skills/roles. So any strong feelings about what we should call the decorative/civilisation type structures that provide a DI bonus?

Is Auxiliary Structures reserved for anything yet?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

DI Structures.

The KISS principle in action


We could go simple and just call them DI Boosters/Index Enhancers.

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
I think it makes sense to keep 'support structures' as the term for things that support classes/skills/roles. So any strong feelings about what we should call the decorative/civilisation type structures that proide a DI bonus?

How about PoI's? *ducks*

something along the lines of ornaments, or decorations, or artwork might work. Or just call them features, or index boosters.

Goblin Squad Member

Malphris wrote:

To Craft fine armor and weapons will take training the respective skills and acquiring the materials. By making PvP the only input into advancing the available training, it selects for PvP. Your example of 1/2 party with 3 times as good gear, it does not match the parameters. To get the skills to make the better gear would require already being significantly larger than the opponent.

Its a king of the hill reward system, the process protects those on top and ensures they stay on top. Obviously, the large group wants better equipment sure. But, if the system ensures the smaller challenger can not get even equivalent equipment, then better equipment is not really necessary. "Rocks and sticks" WILL work if the opponent does not have them. (Not that it will be that bad, but the concept is valid)

I'm not trying to do any recruitment or anything, just wanted to point out there are already Trade Cities that are planned to be crafting specific for anyone looking for training and quality goods to purchase. Not only that, but experienced sandbox PvPers all recognize the importance of supply lines, and recognize the great need for goods to make it to market and get processed and crafted.

Sure, we love killing people, but not to the point it's going to screw up our ability to acquire better and more BA gear to use... and that only comes from the people who are 'actually' building the game from the inside... Crafters, and those who provide the materials they need.

A sandbox game with a player economy is a symbiotic relationship between the entire community, and you best believe those of us PKers with experience in such things recognize and respect that.

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
So any strong feelings about what we should call the decorative/civilisation type structures that provide a DI bonus?

Infrastructure

edit: And then, realistically, it makes perfect sense for the "government" to give them away like candy every now-and-then.

Goblin Squad Member

We could call those building Index Assets, or IAs for short.

Scarab Sages

"Elves Decoration Useless Stuff"

If I choose to be an dwarf, I will call this way independent on what was labeled.

Goblin Squad Member

Kemedo wrote:

"Elves Decoration Useless Stuff"

If I choose to be an dwarf, I will call this way independent on what was labeled.

That's only if it's made out of nancy trees. If it's good proper dwarven stonework, then it's truly an asset to any settlement it's in.

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
Guurzak wrote:

That's confusing. >_<

Tork, what language should we be using to clearly distinguish between "non-training buildings which prevent decay of trained abilities" and "decorative structures which carry small DI bonuses"?

Calling both "support" is bad, and you should feel bad.

I feel terrible. I cant tell you.

Lets crowd forge it! (eek!)

So currently structures that 'support' classes are called 'class support structures'. AND structures like fountains, statues, gardens, and silos which provide a bonus to DI are called 'support structures'.

I think it makes sense to keep 'support structures' as the term for things that support classes/skills/roles. So any strong feelings about what we should call the decorative/civilisation type structures that provide a DI bonus?

SSR Structures and Civ Features?

Goblin Squad Member

I like the term auxiliary structures. Works quite nicely for what they are.

The Exchange Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deianira wrote:
Banesama wrote:
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.

Yes, this, very much this!

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tork Shaw wrote:
I diddnt want it to seem like if someone proposed an exploit and I never got back to them it was because we diddnt care.

Anyone else think of Max Headroom while reading that?

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
Guurzak wrote:

That's confusing. >_<

Tork, what language should we be using to clearly distinguish between "non-training buildings which prevent decay of trained abilities" and "decorative structures which carry small DI bonuses"?

Calling both "support" is bad, and you should feel bad.

I feel terrible. I cant tell you.

Lets crowd forge it! (eek!)

So currently structures that 'support' classes are called 'class support structures'. AND structures like fountains, statues, gardens, and silos which provide a bonus to DI are called 'support structures'.

I think it makes sense to keep 'support structures' as the term for things that support classes/skills/roles. So any strong feelings about what we should call the decorative/civilisation type structures that provide a DI bonus?

Settlement Enhancement Structures or SEs for short.

Also, since "classes" aren't going to be in game, why not Character Advancement Structures or CAs instead of Class Support?

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:
I think it makes sense to keep 'support structures' as the term for things that support classes/skills/roles. So any strong feelings about what we should call the decorative/civilisation type structures that proide a DI bonus?

How about PoI's? *ducks*

something along the lines of ornaments, or decorations, or artwork might work. Or just call them features, or index boosters.

I like "Settlement Features."

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
WotT

No Guinness?

351 to 400 of 622 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 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.