Goblin Squad Member
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The tower warfare component of the game in early enrollment will provide small groups, and even individuals, a set of opportunities to make the most of what you can offer. Those of you without communities have a chance to make yourselves valuable in this process, in particular, to other small and medium sized groups, who can derive significant benefit from your decision to work with them. Even groups of two or three may be able to make a significant difference in the Tower Wars by holding towers that no-one else is paying attention to on the fringes of the board. Perhaps individuals who have no interest in forming companies or directly supporting settlements can come together in small ad-hoc groups for the sole purpose of holding a tower for a few weeks in exchange for future considerations from settlements. Whether you work with a small group or a large one, you'll have no better opportunity to make yourselves valuable.
If you've been sitting on the fence and haven't entered the game, you may have no better opportunity to make a place for yourself than by forming close working relationships early in the game. Ask yourself how frustrated you and those entering now are that they did not enter the kickstarter when the had the chance. A year from now, will you be one of the ones feeling the same way at missing this second opportunity to be part of building Pathfinder Online from early in the start of play?
To those of you with communities who want to hold them as long as you can, I believe it’s in our best interests to co-ordinate, in order to make sure our open windows of attack are at the same time as much as possible, to reduce the number of people that can come at any of us simultaneously. If you are interested in doing so, please contact me either here via PM, or at d20rpg@gmail.com. As the drop gets closer, we can work to establish preferred times of window and when you simply can’t do it. It's possible that with a couple of varied groups, we can even support each other in multiple locations. The internet being as vast as it is, we may need to have multiple slots, and also appeal to larger groups to make local deals in exchange for backup at the appropriate times.
Make no mistake. The game is already afoot. And it is all about cooperation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe it’s in our best interests to co-ordinate, in order to make sure our open windows of attack are at the same time as much as possible, to reduce the number of people that can come at any of us simultaneously.
I think this idea is simply brilliant. I feel confident that The Seventh Veil would be willing to coordinate with you along these lines. I don't know that we'll be able to "draw their fire", but it's the kind of thing I've personally always wanted to be able to do for the benefit of groups exactly like yours.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hopefully the small groups will listen. The bottom line is most of the groups who want to go for a small company feel should focus instead on the idea of running a POI. Many of the larger companies would welcome small groups under their umbrella who would be primarily responsible for day to day management of POIs and those small groups could get their experience now under the WoT system. People need to remember a company probably will not have the numbers to run a settlement. Once they get that big it make more sense to divide and keep the influence coming in. A single company can affiliate with the larger "guilds" as the management of a specific POI and while I expect some amount of resources would need to be allocated to the settlement the company would then get the support of guards from the settlement. For those truly note interested in giving up any independence you can always go unsponsored and claim a POI. These mechanics should be the same for WoT, just find a somewhat isolated tower and try to defend it against all comers. Being a member of TEO and someone who wants to be a crafter/POI manager I would love to see a patchwork of friendly POI holders who I could act as intermediary for. There are many levels of interaction that this game will allow. I want to ask every person who thinks this game is going to be too PvP oriented to truly ask around because there is a place for you in this game, it might not be what you envisioned but the beauty of a sandbox is that you can shape it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there are a fair few larger groups who would be interested in helping smaller groups maintain their holds on the towers. It provides them with friendly neighbors who would remember the aid later on. Reach out to their various diplomats and see what security arrangements can be made.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Larger groups are also looking for small groups to join up with them. Golgotha is willing to talk to pretty much anyone about joining up.hey! Larger groups have their own threads. ;-P
Medium size groups, like Kabal - just off my head as an example, needs small groups to join them as well as individuals.
* I define large as 45+ members. IF we ignore the huge Empyrean Order, 45 is the average size of the other 32 groups leading in the land rush.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
............................
Wow, just wow.
So in Darkfall, the attacker determines the PvP window. One tactic commonly used by smaller groups to deny larger groups their numbers advantage is to siege multiple holdings at a time. The defenders are then forced to defend on multiple fronts at once, the attackers can then go in and commit their full force against the holdings they actually intended to take.
So say Alliance A has 500 members and 10 holdings and Alliance B has 200 members trying to take them.
Alliance A has 50 members per holding but is pretty much guaranteed they will have less than 50 at their less valuable holdings and more than 50 at the more valuable holdings.
As long as they aren't too obvious in which holdings they intend to attack this is going to boil down to a fairly easy grab of 4 holdings provided equal tactics and PvP skill in all other aspects.
If the larger groups are looking mainly to their own defense it pretty much guarantees their safety at the sacrifice of the smaller group's holdings.
However if the 500 member alliance staggers the PvP windows then they can move their forces around from battlefield to battlefield pressing their numbers advantages home on as many fields as possible.
So basically, if you are a smaller group looking to keep your holding and you can secure an alliance with the larger groups this tactic is the exact opposite of what you should be doing.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
............................
Wow, just wow.
So in Darkfall, the attacker determines the PvP window. One tactic commonly used by smaller groups to deny larger groups their numbers advantage is to siege multiple holdings at a time. The defenders are then forced to defend on multiple fronts at once, the attackers can then go in and commit their full force against the holdings they actually intended to take.
So say Alliance A has 500 members and 10 holdings and Alliance B has 200 members trying to take them.
Alliance A has 50 members per holding but is pretty much guaranteed they will have less than 50 at their less valuable holdings and more than 50 at the more valuable holdings.
As long as they aren't too obvious in which holdings they intend to attack this is going to boil down to a fairly easy grab of 4 holdings provided equal tactics and PvP skill in all other aspects.
If the larger groups are looking mainly to their own defense it pretty much guarantees their safety at the sacrifice of the smaller group's holdings.
However if the 500 member alliance staggers the PvP windows then they can move their forces around from battlefield to battlefield pressing their numbers advantages home on as many fields as possible.
So basically, if you are a smaller group looking to keep your holding and you can secure an alliance with the larger groups this tactic is the exact opposite of what you should be doing.
More so because being aligned with a settlement that has many towers aligned with it means having a longer window, and such settlements have more of the towers that can't provide and receive mutual support.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know what you're getting at. Ten groups that each have 7-10 members and one or two towers are each going to have close to the minimum window. The fact that they are "allied" with each other (in terms of agreeing to a plan) is not going to make their window bigger. Even then, some will have no choice but to open at different times because of their own time zone vagaries
Those groups that are able to partner with a larger group will invariably adjust their strategy to what will work best for the people that are assisting them.
This isn't about a single strategy that is going to work for everybody. It's about planning for something, and arriving at a strategy that works best for your group. And about tiny groups and individuals taking advantage of the fact that they can leverage their position in this matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
More so because being aligned with a settlement that has many towers aligned with it means having a longer window, and such settlements have more of the towers that can't provide and receive mutual support.
Right, I had forgotten that part but in that case likely the smaller group will pick off all of the holdings of the weaker groups before or after going on to attempt seizing control of the holdings owned by the larger groups with longer windows.
If the larger groups respond by sending their forces to protect the smaller groups during their windows, then they leave themselves vulnerable.
However if the smaller groups became open before or after their PvP window they can send forces to support at no risk to themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know what you're getting at. Ten groups that each have 7-10 members and one or two towers are each going to have close to the minimum window. The fact that they are "allied" with each other (in terms of agreeing to a plan) is not going to make their window bigger. Even then, some will have no choice but to open at different times because of their own time zone vagaries
I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. What I am suggesting is the largest zergs in the game are all offering their support.
If you stagger your windows they can move around from group to group and help you defend your holdings even if you have 0 members online from your individual group.
If you make all your windows pop open at the same time they will be too busy defending themselves to care about you, or else they will lose some of their holdings.
If you want to play things defensive then you want your windows to match the windows of your ENEMIES. That leaves them open to a counter siege if they move against you. You want to stagger your windows with your allies unless you are entirely outnumbered as an alliance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know what you're getting at. Ten groups that each have 7-10 members and one or two towers are each going to have close to the minimum window. The fact that they are "allied" with each other (in terms of agreeing to a plan) is not going to make their window bigger. Even then, some will have no choice but to open at different times because of their own time zone vagariesI'm suggesting nothing of the sort. What I am suggesting is the largest zergs in the game are all offering their support.
If you stagger your windows they can move around from group to group and help you defend your holdings even if you have 0 members online from your individual group.
If you make all your windows pop open at the same time they will be too busy defending themselves to care about you, or else they will lose some of their holdings.
If you want to play things defensive then you want your windows to match the windows of your ENEMIES. That leaves them open to a counter siege if they move against you. You want to stagger your windows with your allies unless you are entirely outnumbered as an alliance.
Gotcha. Your first post was a bit confusing, but your follow up posts make sense. I'm pretty sure most groups are already acting in this fashion, its a basic tactical plan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anyone who's mission statement is we want to kill you for the LULZ....willing to talk to pretty much anyone...Any prizes for guessing who's in "no"? :-D
I'd happily join with that sentiment. You know, if such a group does show up, I think the various Pax Chapters, TEO, TSV, basically *everyone* would show up to explain "not in this game". And that would be a good bit of fun to see happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not necessarily. Ideally the largest group of a large alliance will have almost constant presence in game. They will set their PvP window when most of their player base is online and try to coordinate their allies times so there are not too many targets open at once. Then they can plan what numbers they can send to assist as well as the non open allies adding their weight to the defense. If it's just a couple smaller groups with only a couple towers apiece they will definitely want separate times so they can stack defenders on one settlements window at a time. Multiple large settlements in alliance will be most susceptible to losing the occasional tower because they will likely have overlapping windows, many targets for each settlement and people out looking for another target. I will be surprised if we see settlements with more than 12 towers and most will probably run with 4-8 at a guess.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But Cal B isn't that how the world works :). Seriously I think friendly groups will look for as much advantage as they can get out of the system and it will depend on the dynamics of the groups. I could see a small secluded PvP settlement with a larger allied settlement bordered by hostiles dictating to the larger settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see this is progressing excellently along my planned road of the larger groups telling us what we ought to do so that they can best take better care of us the way we ought to be taken care of.
Notice all the independent single system holding groups?
Neither did I.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Phoenix Brotherhood is also looking to add members to both our guild and the settlement of free Companies we are members of.
Any individual that is looking for a guild but wants more information then what they can get from the blurbs on the guild index feel free to PM me here or come to our settlement forums and PM me there.
http://the-phoenix-brotherhood.guildlaunch.com
Any Company that wishes equal and fair representation in a settlement government and does not wish to get lost in the crowd, please PM me and lets talk about how we can help each other out.
Good luck to all,
Long Live the Free,
Jericho of The Phoenix Brotherhood
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...the larger groups telling us what we ought to do so that they can best take better care of us the way we ought to be taken care of.
I hope that, by the time everything goes live, you'll be seeing a division between those dictating, those recommending, those offering, and those helping. There'll be mix-and-match, of course, but I also hope you'll find consistency among future friends.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I see this is progressing excellently along my planned road of the larger groups telling us what we ought to do so that they can best take better care of us the way we ought to be taken care of.Notice all the independent single system holding groups?
Neither did I.
THORN alliance, Insidious Empire, Echos of Nowhere, Squee, and The Kedeshi.
It's very possible that some or all of those aren't "independent", and I think that it's interesting that there is either a group called "unclaimed" or nobody who wants to set up shop in that region.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see this is progressing excellently along my planned road of the larger groups telling us what we ought to do so that they can best take better care of us the way we ought to be taken care of.Notice all the independent single system holding groups?
Neither did I.
Do you see me there?
Neither did I.
Also, HUN Reloaded looks pretty small.
This isn't EVE Online, though. Evidence from EVE Online should be seriously weighed and considered, but not treated as definitive proof of anything.
I see this is progressing excellently along my planned road of the larger groups telling us what we ought to do so that they can best take better care of us the way we ought to be taken care of.Notice all the independent single system holding groups?
Neither did I.
Do you see me there?
Neither did I.
Heh. I don't know that I agree with your point, but points for a clever comeback.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The wars that determine who holds territory and who doesn't should have little difference. The only way any group will hold territory is with the support of larger groups or by forming coalitions with other smaller groups.
Basically, if you are independent, you will not remain such. You'll either have to fall into, form, or be conquered by a larger group.
That's not to say you'll have no control in the running of your own settlement but it is saying you'll have to make agreements with other groups, and the other groups that are successful may expect you to strategize. For instance picking a PvP window that is optimal for the alliance rather than just your individual settlement, in exchange for alliance support during that window.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see this is progressing excellently along my planned road of the larger groups telling us what we ought to do so that they can best take better care of us the way we ought to be taken care of.Notice all the independent single system holding groups?
Neither did I.
THORN alliance, Insidious Empire, Echos of Nowhere, Squee, and The Kedeshi.
It's very possible that some or all of those aren't "independent", and I think that it's interesting that there is either a group called "unclaimed" or nobody who wants to set up shop in that region.
I don't believe any of those are holding a single system. Also they likely have ties to some of the larger blobs. For instance I was with a small blob called "Imperial Legion" that had it's own blob on the map.
We retained our independence through an alliance with Solar Fleet.
I see this is progressing excellently along my planned road of the larger groups telling us what we ought to do so that they can best take better care of us the way we ought to be taken care of.
Wasn't the "making friends" angle already brought up?
You know, I am a bit tired of all the shameless plugging. Freevale is really big on giving companies and free agents autonomy, but you don't see us bragging about it!
Oops.
But seriously, I'd rather hear about settlements who aren't gonna allow their companies to retain their identities. Seems like they're more likely to be the minority, from what I've seen.
This thread brought to you by the Mooncalves: The only Chartered Company this side of Toad Hollow to offer dental insurance! As long as you use our official dental care provider, the Stone Bear Legitimate Dentist Place. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The wars that determine who holds territory and who doesn't should have little difference.
You are concerned from day one about "winning" the game. I, and many like me, have no illusions of doing any such thing. I plan to experience what it's like to operate in PFOnline, and over a period of a few months decide if they'll get more than I've already spent.
You are trying to help me be like you think I should be, in order to have the kind of fun that you think I should want to have. I'm not interested in that particular goal. I am trying to decide if I should keep giving Goblinworks $15.00 a month when my current allotment of time runs out.
I don't care how similar or different it is in comparison to any other game in the universe. I only care if my friends and I can have fun doing the things we want to do.
We don't want to be part of a mighty army that dominates the landscape through carefully thought out PvP tactics and strategies. Maybe that means we can't have fun in PFOnline. Trying to convince us up front that we can't enjoy ourselves unless we do is not productive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know, I am a bit tired of all the shameless plugging. Freevale is really big on giving companies and free agents autonomy, but you don't see us bragging about it!
Oops.
But seriously, I'd rather hear about settlements who aren't gonna allow their companies to retain their identities. Seems like they're more likely to be the minority, from what I've seen.
I think the population breakdowns found on these forums will be very different than the population breakdowns found in-game in a couple years.
Right now this game is a popularity contest. People promise nothing but cookies and roses. "You won't be expected to contribute to the company. The alliance will make no demands of your company. Everyone will get a vote in every decision. All our information is public / we hold no secrets. etc. etc. etc."
It all sounds really nice and it's attracting a lot of people. Once the game is live though there will be some new dynamics thrown into the equation. Which groups will have enemies running through their territory picking off targets with ease? Which groups will be winning battles on a regular basis and which will be losing them just as regularly? Which groups will hold their territory and which will be burned out?
The groups currently promising free teddy bears and puppies for everyone will be going back on their promises, or ceasing to exist.
Nothing draws members to a group like the sweet smell of victory, and nothing turns them away like the bitter taste of defeat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are concerned from day one about "winning" the game. I, and many like me, have no illusions of doing any such thing. I plan to experience what it's like to operate in PFOnline, and over a period of a few months decide if they'll get more than I've already spent.
Any group that intends to hold territory needs to adopt that mindset. I'm not saying you can't play without that mindset, what I am saying is if you expect to hold on to something as valuable as a settlement, the leadership of your settlement needs to have competition on the brain from day 1. Before day 1 actually.
The best place for you and players like you, would be chartering a company with a settlement that will take you in. That's going to leave you a lot of room to go out and do your own thing. Be the wandering band of adventurers, enjoy all the PVE content you want etc.
More PvP oriented groups will certainly find value in having players to deal with the PVE escalations threatening their settlement, people crafting gear for them to buy etc.
Settlement leadership is the domain of the cunning, competitive, and ambitious. This particular aspect of the game may not be cut out for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We promise to keep having fun. That's about all we are promising right now. Oh, and that we plan to build a tavern.
The amount that we, as players, don't actually know about the game is staggering. I have really stated no promises past that. Btw, queue someone to pop up and prove me wrong. Oh! I did say that companies wouldn't lose their identities. That's true, because I don't want to run someone else's company. I have already got one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He has yet to decide on whether or not a settlement and the work that comes along with it is worth $15 bucks a month vs. The time left over and accessibilty to do the things they consider fun.
If he decides it is worth it to hang on to the settlement and continue paying, he'll be behind the power curve, but so will a lot of other folks. People like you and I are in this for competition as well as fun. Caldeathe is just in it for fun. Just because he is less successful than more competitive folks on the advancement side of things doesn't mean he'll have less fun.
That's something smaller less competitve groups will have to realize. It may not be in your best interest to run a settlement if you want to have fun. That doesn't mean you can't find a settlement to support you and still have fun while making meaningful contributions to the settlement you end up in. I know that people that want to play and have fun without being competitive will have a place in PFO, but they may have to alter their approach as to what path will offer the least resistance to having fun.
No one can decide that for them and its not an easy choice, but it may be a necessary choice in the near future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best place for you and players like you
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand what kind of player I am. I do not care if I have no settlement to control in a year. This is an experience for me. My experience. Not yours.
I am not you.
The best place for me is where I want to be, not where you think I need to be to enjoy the game the way you think I should enjoy it.
I think ol' Andius's point is that you're more likely to have fun not running a settlement anyways. So, a bit of miscommunication on either side. He's saying you probably shouldn't run a settlement because you'll lose it, and you're saying you don't care if you lose it regardless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think ol' Andius's point is that you're more likely to have fun not running a settlement anyways. So, a bit of miscommunication on either side. He's saying you probably shouldn't run a settlement because you'll lose it, and you're saying you don't care if you lose it regardless.
Right settlement leadership is a role reserved for a tiny fraction of the player population. That tiny fraction will eventually be made up of those who do it exceedingly well because all others will be forced out of it.
Anyone who goes into it with any intent other than taking it very seriously and putting 110% toward becoming exceedingly good at it, is only setting themselves up for disappointment. There are going to be thousands of players in this game on day one and only 33 settlements. Someone feel free to do the math on what % of those players will have the privilege of heading a settlement.
So if you are really 100% ok with losing the settlement then go ahead because there is a 100% chance you will lose it if you don't care about "winning".
If you want to set off down a path you might succeed at, then you may want to listen to me.