Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aragon Policy: War of The Towers
As a policy the settlement of Aragon will secure the six hexes immediately adjacent to its settlement hex, plus any unattended hexes immediately next to those.
During our open PvP window, Aragon welcomes its fellow Northern Coalition members to freely hunt any uninvited trespassers in our lands.
During our closed PvP window, the sponsored companies will reciprocate with our Northern Coalition partners, and hunt down interlopers in their lands.
The settlement of Aragon nor its member charter companies will make no claim to the loot taken from intruders in our lands, and we likewise expect to have what we hold of the loot we gain while patrolling another settlement's lands.
For non Northern Coalition settlements, we will offer the same service for a nominal fee (TBD in game). Obviously if another Northern Coalition member are the intruders, they will be informed of our contract. They may chose to accept that or proceed with their assault. We will fulfill our contract as previously discussed. This is not a violation of the NAP, as long as the winner buys the ale!
Whereas other companies see the advantages in the War of the Towers as a source of buffing future training, we see it as that plus the opportunity to engage in consequence free PvP frequently.
This will provide the citizens of Aragon with vastly more PvP experience than those who choose to frown upon the entire concept of the War of the Towers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
During our closed PvP window, the sponsored companies will reciprocate with our Northern Coalition partners, and hunt down interlopers in their lands... For non Northern Coalition settlements, we will offer the same service for a nominal fee (TBD in game).
What I think a lot of people are wondering is:
Does that policy apply only to retention of currently held towers from interlopers (i.e. can someone label the current owners of any tower "interlopers" and hire Aragonians to oust them from the hex for pvp and giggles)?
And the corollary to that: how much geography matters. Are the six towers around a protosettlement considered to belong to the group who won that hex in the Land Rush so others are the interlopers? Or if DistantBigTown comes halfway across the map and manages to claim two of the towers surrounding PuppydogRainbowville can DistantBigTown hire Aragon to defend those towers from the interlopers that live in the adjacent protosettlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the blog was pretty clear, during the window the hex become FFA PvP enabled. That must include the current tower owners. Furthermore the blog also says that more than one group can attack the same tower at the same time, and whomever gains more points wins the control of the tower.
As soon as you capture a tower, that starts the 24 hour cool down for that hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know what the mechanics described in the blog are.
I asked questions regarding what you are going to choose to do within the perimeter of them.
I clearly explained what we plan to do within those game mechanics and intent of the War of the Towers.
We intent to secure our six, and hold them. We intent to capture unattended towers immediately adjacent to our six alpha towers. We intend to offer our services to freely roam our employer's hexes, to attack and loot any interlopers. We intent to offer our services to help our employer capture towers, provided those towers are not Northern Coalition owned or they are not towers that are our alpha six or immediately adjacent to our alpha six.
We are perfectly satisfied with predictable, moderate growth and still maximize our participation in as much FFA PVP as we can manage to contract for.
This in essence complies to your request in another thread and in PMs to not be overly expansionist. We only look to dominate what we hold, and anything beyond that is to perhaps gain a temporary advantage, but it's loss will not be anguished over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
During our closed PvP window, the sponsored companies will reciprocate with our Northern Coalition partners, and hunt down interlopers in their lands... For non Northern Coalition settlements, we will offer the same service for a nominal fee (TBD in game).What I think a lot of people are wondering is:
Does that policy apply only to retention of currently held towers from interlopers (i.e. can someone label the current owners of any tower "interlopers" and hire Aragonians to oust them from the hex for pvp and giggles)?
And the corollary to that: how much geography matters. Are the six towers around a protosettlement considered to belong to the group who won that hex in the Land Rush so others are the interlopers? Or if DistantBigTown comes halfway across the map and manages to claim two of the towers surrounding PuppydogRainbowville can DistantBigTown hire Aragon to defend those towers from the interlopers that live in the adjacent protosettlement?
I think what you are asking is if (Example only) TEO decided to take a tower or 2 from the 6 surrounding another settlement near us and then hire us to defend it for them, would we do that?
The answer would be yes with the understanding that the settlement those tower(s) surround have the advantage of being able to zerg out constantly where we (while closer) still have some distance to travel back from when losses are suffered.
I think that answers your question, right??
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You get PMs to not be expansionist?!You mean you don't? Bugger me!! The UNC is always the "special case" I guess. I can't complain, that is btw, working as intended.
I think some are overworried about UNC. If UNC was to spread to the four corners of the map to try to acquire Towers for themselves or others, they would be spread too thin and be easy pickings at their home.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some are overworried about UNC. If UNC was to spread to the four corners of the map to try to acquire Towers for themselves or others, they would be spread too thin and be easy pickings at their home.You get PMs to not be expansionist?!You mean you don't? Bugger me!! The UNC is always the "special case" I guess. I can't complain, that is btw, working as intended.
You're correct. That won't stop us, however, from dropping into those hexes with open PvP windows simply for the sake of PvP, loot, and good times.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're correct. That won't stop us, however, from dropping into those hexes with open PvP windows simply for the sake of PvP, loot, and good times.I think some are overworried about UNC. If UNC was to spread to the four corners of the map to try to acquire Towers for themselves or others, they would be spread too thin and be easy pickings at their home.You get PMs to not be expansionist?!You mean you don't? Bugger me!! The UNC is always the "special case" I guess. I can't complain, that is btw, working as intended.
Yeah, I think they might be making the assumption that we want to capture towers in far off lands. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We want towers to remain in an uncaptured state, so that those hexes will remain FFA PVP zones. Then we can set up shop and ambush and loot to our heart's content.
