So Tower control affects the level a settlement's trainers can train to.
But does a settlement have to have a lot of companies to control a lot of towers? Or would one large company be sufficient? I'm sure I could look this up, but I really don't feel like it.
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what we know at the moment, each Company can control one Tower, but that, of course, may not be the final ruling. One can see, in Caldeathe's Excellent Spreadsheet, that the larger Companies with Settlements are setting up smaller Companies in order to hold Towers.
I think we need a name for "smaller Company to hold a Tower" that's different from "bigger Company residing in a Settlement", but right now "Company" seems to be the name for both.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We've heard hints that they may loosen up the one tower per company requirement- possibly to 3 per- in light of the expected population levels at the start of WoT.
The way GW has conceived of companies has evolved somewhat over the course of development. But they've always been pretty consistent that they see a character's primary identity and community being focused on their settlement, not their company. Companies at this point seem more along the lines of groups sharing a specific responsibility within the larger settlement community, e.g. defending and managing a particular POI or feuding a group who's been harassing our gatherers.
Obviously this will feel different from one group to the next- especially in cases where a close-knit out-of-game guild is joining as a company because they don't have the numbers or might to run their own settlement. But I think for the most part, things are going to fall out where company membership is primarily a function of what job you've chosen to do for your settlement.
Thanks!
Question 2: If I decide to start out with a small settlement that has a very limited number of occupants and, therefore, towers, can I get training at other settlements to make up the difference?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, you can train elsewhere if they let you.
However, your skills are limited by your home settlement's Support rating for those skills, which is also a function of your tower count. So, foreign training isn't so much a tool for supplementing your tower count, as it is a way to provide training for roles which your town can't train at all.
Example: You've chosen a Fighter+Rogue template for your settlement, and you have 6 towers. Your fighters and rogues can train up to level 6 in your town, and your clerics and wizards can't train here but they do have level 6 support for training they get elsewhere. Going to Twentytowerville for training isn't going to help you overcome your own tower shortfall- level 6 is all you have support for.
Excellent explanation. Thank you.
It seems that that will seriously disadvantage smaller settlements. At the same time, that also seems realistic. In any event, increasing the tower/company limit to 3/per from 1/per would be a boon to small settlements and players that want to have larger, more cohesive companies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly they need to remove the whole 1 company per tower anyways. It will just be a logistical PITA for players.
IF TEO has to break up into 8 companies to hold the towers they want to hold they will. It will be gamed no matter how they set it up. Just let companies take what they can hold.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly they need to remove the whole 1 company per tower anyways. It will just be a logistical PITA for players.
They don't have to. It would be to the advantage of many people if they did, and it would simplify decisions for a lot of people if they did. But try to recognize that people have been making decisions based on the information available. When something is stated as being a fact, then changed later, it disadvantages people who made decisions based on the earlier rule.
I don't actually care if they modify this, or not, but recognize that one of the reasons Elkhaven joined Ozem's Vigil is that it would be impossible for us to manage enough towers to train better than the NPC starter town. Modifying the rules so that groups half our size have a better chance than we would have is a bit of a slap in the face to those of us who tried to do the smart thing under the rules as they were previously.
They may change it. The certainly don't have to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to agree with Caldeathe. For the reasons that he detailed.
Further, I think it would be a mistake to do that now. You don't want to punish those that took the Developers advice.
Would love some real details on the WoT. The theory crafting/planning did not end with blending groups and winning a spot.
Edit: For instance: How will all of these rolls (that we trained) be supported AFTER the WoT?
How about making it interesting: 1 tower can support a small building. 2 towers, a medium. 3 Towers, a large. Ditch the levels...
I think the towers are just placeholders for POIs and are intended to be replaced by the POIs when they become active.
Caldeathe's point is very good. I agree with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course the current rules could be seen as an encouragement for smaller settlements to recruit and grow.
Which is exactly what Ryan et. al. have said from day one. Settlements are not meant to be held by twn or twenty or even 50 or 100 people. They are meant to be held by groups of hundreds.
If the small groups that hold settlements today can grow quickly enough to operate effectively, then they deserve to succeed, if not, they should fail and make room for others.
Yes, you can train elsewhere if they let you.
However, your skills are limited by your home settlement's Support rating for those skills, which is also a function of your tower count. So, foreign training isn't so much a tool for supplementing your tower count, as it is a way to provide training for roles which your town can't train at all.
Example: You've chosen a Fighter+Rogue template for your settlement, and you have 6 towers. Your fighters and rogues can train up to level 6 in your town, and your clerics and wizards can't train here but they do have level 6 support for training they get elsewhere. Going to Twentytowerville for training isn't going to help you overcome your own tower shortfall- level 6 is all you have support for.
I don't understand why they wanted this mechanic. It could easily become a game of a 'good old boy' companies/settlements that didn't let anyone train.
The idea that people will want to dominate the map, I think, is not always true. If a few people can control the whole thing and they have an alliance, then the game basically becomes their playground. In which case, the game is 'won' and 'over' as a competitive game. The issue being that this could happen rather early in PFO.
Then, there wouldn't even be a solo game because you couldn't train except under the supervision of the mega-powers.
That, even more than the idea that there could actually be a game of huge nations that are relatively friendly to other huge nations and destroy all else, really bothers me.
It almost makes me wonder why they did that and what the outcome would be other than everyone migrating to the largest ones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, you can train elsewhere if they let you.
However, your skills are limited by your home settlement's Support rating for those skills, which is also a function of your tower count. So, foreign training isn't so much a tool for supplementing your tower count, as it is a way to provide training for roles which your town can't train at all.
Example: You've chosen a Fighter+Rogue template for your settlement, and you have 6 towers. Your fighters and rogues can train up to level 6 in your town, and your clerics and wizards can't train here but they do have level 6 support for training they get elsewhere. Going to Twentytowerville for training isn't going to help you overcome your own tower shortfall- level 6 is all you have support for.
I don't understand why they wanted this mechanic. It could easily become a game of a 'good old boy' companies/settlements that didn't let anyone train.
The idea that people will want to dominate the map, I think, is not always true. If a few people can control the whole thing and they have an alliance, then the game basically becomes their playground. In which case, the game is 'won' and 'over' as a competitive game. The issue being that this could happen rather early in PFO.
Then, there wouldn't even be a solo game because you couldn't train except under the supervision of the mega-powers.
That, even more than the idea that there could actually be a game of huge nations that are relatively friendly to other huge nations and destroy all else, really bothers me.
It almost makes me wonder why they did that and what the outcome would be other than everyone migrating to the largest ones.
I think the point is this --- >
There are plenty of D&D/pathfinder based games out their (really all fantasy games are either D&D based or WoW style mana based) and virtually every single one of them is based on the players being independent "All American Action Heroes" who level up to godlike status and go slay Dragons solo. The most you get in a WoW style game is guilds that run instances en mass in groups of 20 or 30 players over and over until they all get a copy of "Magic Flaming Talking Sword Mk VII" .
There is no need or rational reason to make yet another D&D based "one man solo with the odd guild blob" fantasy hero game.
What does not exist yet is a more "realistic" fantasy based game where individuals do OK but people that have friends and co-operate can do much better than OK. You probably have to have played EVE to even get an inkling of where PFO is heading, it will not be like other MMOs (nor will everyone like it).
People build stuff in EVE that would take any individual player 20 or 30 years real time to achieve alone. Eve is currently opening up new player built stargates for example and people are not saying "how do I own my own stargate" they are saying " is my alliance big enough to finance something that huge",
Yes you will actually get the EVE style bluesec renter thing happening. But you will also get some really interesting politics and dynamics that goes well beyond the clan feuds of other games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It'll become increasingly expensive--followed by prohibitively expensive--for Kingdoms to spread themselves out across the map. There'll be some sort of limit beyond which no one can pay the price.
I suspect in the end there will be just a few and perhaps only two mega-coalitions made up of smaller alliances/nations which dominate.
But we will see, that is half the fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing that EVE has demonstrated is that when the giants have conquered everything around them, when they could settle into peaceful rule, instead, they often get bored and reckless.
The Alliance I played in, TEST Alliance Please Ignore, risked everything they had gained because "Peace is boring." They sent us into battles all over the star cluster, instead of focusing on what they already held. Their gamble failed, and they lost everything.
Even if PFO were locked into a stable power structure, I don't think it would last. All the little guys have to do, sometimes, is wait for the big guys to tear themselves apart, then step in to pick up the pieces.
Hopefully, the fact that PFO can expand, while EVE covers a fixed amount of territory, might prevent some of the stagnation from setting in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TEST was amusing, the whole creation of the alliance was a joke to begin with just to mess with IT (BoB). It was cool that they made it as large as they did, but that amount of people is difficult to control. "Peace is boring" is another way of keeping people busy to prevent being torn apart from the inside. But the leaders had very little to lose... being a Goon alliance to begin with.
Eve has expanded quite a bit. There is a massive amount of territory that has been added to 0.0 space since the beginning (not including Worm Hole Space). They have already done what PFO intends to do. If (and a big if) PFO lasts 10 years then we shall see where it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
> I don't understand why they wanted this mechanic. It could easily become a game of a 'good old boy' companies/settlements that didn't let anyone train.
If you choose not to do the things necessary to be competitive and successful on the political battlefield, you may very well not be able to train. Working as intended.
> If a few people can control the whole thing and they have an alliance, then the game basically becomes their playground. In which case, the game is 'won' and 'over' as a competitive game. The issue being that this could happen rather early in PFO.
This is less likely than you think, and if it does happen I am confident that GW would take steps to break the stasis.
> Then, there wouldn't even be a solo game because you couldn't train except under the supervision of the mega-powers.
The solo game in PFO is limited to the training available in the NPC cities. You will not solo to 20 in PFO. Make friends or accept limits.
> It almost makes me wonder why they did that and what the outcome would be other than everyone migrating to the largest ones.
Logistic distance is the limit on alliance: you cannot support someone who is located in a place where you cannot effectively project power. It's my sincere hope and concern that the logistic distances in PFO are far enough to make faction implosion impossible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
> It almost makes me wonder why they did that and what the outcome would be other than everyone migrating to the largest ones.
Logistic distance is the limit on alliance: you cannot support someone who is located in a place where you cannot effectively project power. It's my sincere hope and concern that the logistic distances in PFO are far enough to make faction implosion impossible.
yep ... the real issue in EVE is not Goons it is the ease of long distance logistics and power projection - more specifically stuff like Jump Freighters, cynos and Titan hotdrops.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The solo game in PFO is limited to the training available in the NPC cities.
From what we've seen in Alpha, it appears NPC-city training will peter out around Level 7 in each Role, subject to tweaking before EE. All Tier 1 Feats should be trained and supported, but to go beyond you'll need friends, funds, or fear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The solo game in PFO is limited to the training available in the NPC cities.From what we've seen in Alpha, it appears NPC-city training will peter out around Level 7 in each Role, subject to tweaking before EE. All Tier 1 Feats should be trained and supported, but to go beyond you'll need friends, funds, or fear.
Or free cities that let anyone come in to openly trade and train.
Even in EVE nullsec there are areas which specifically discourage attacking neutrals in order to encourage trade.
I am pretty certain any non-enemy coming to Keepers Pass will be allowed to trade and train, we may well charge a small fee for non locals of course, business is business.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The solo game in PFO is limited to the training available in the NPC cities.From what we've seen in Alpha, it appears NPC-city training will peter out around Level 7 in each Role, subject to tweaking before EE. All Tier 1 Feats should be trained and supported, but to go beyond you'll need friends, funds, or fear.
You have to go to the other towns for a couple skills beyond level 7. I had my character at 9 fighter 9 rogue by the time the server crashed saturday night.
It'll become increasingly expensive--followed by prohibitively expensive--for Kingdoms to spread themselves out across the map. There'll be some sort of limit beyond which no one can pay the price.I suspect in the end there will be just a few and perhaps only two mega-coalitions made up of smaller alliances/nations which dominate.
yeah...
In truth, no one has to support anyone. Just "letting live" is enough if they continue to crush all of the smaller people that don't fall in line.
@ make friends, I have no issue with relating to people. I tend to get along well, but it could get pretty bad with people controlling who can train. That's not 'making friends.' That's more analogous to "work the system." Get a job at the biggest corporation, otherwise, you are taking too large of a risk.
also @ there are enough DnD games: are there many dnd sandbox games? I like the depth and changing nature of a sandbox, so I'm not asking for a pve game, but I don't like restrictions in sandbox. IF you can't do something (like train to 20 unless you get in with what, at that time, will probably be a group of people who feel they can extract whatever from you because there are only a few places to train and you've already spent 6 months gaining the exp for your skills) in any way but one, that's too restrictive. It may have multiple ways to enter that one way, but in the end it's one way. Maybe two ways: be a part of these mega alliances in the beginning or join them. There's no "Well, I had to work extra hard, but I did it." Which may be more realistic.
As said: this system is promoting meta-game level alliances. I bet that since I am in EE I will be able to train as much as I want to. I will find a way, but what about when the game opens for everyone? The new player will have his fate chosen which, again, is kind of against the nature of a sandbox to me.
The only positive would be that once you get to 20 towers, assuming you are one of the only places with 20 towers, people would be reluctant to knock them down if it meant no one could train. That's also a negative, though.
Edit: It should be noted that I am using solo as 'unrelated to what will be the large alliances.'
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The towers are merely a stop-gap until settlement/company/faction mechanics are ready. A year from now, the number of towers you had will have a miniscule effect on your capacity, excepting that, it will have put you in a position to draw more people. Anyone who can find twenty or thirty like-minded individuals at open enrollment will be able to start a settlement and as long as they can get along with enough new players to defend themselves, they will do just fine.
When the map expands, there will be many, many new sites open for groups that want to start a new town, and none of them will ever be dependent on controlling any towers. They may-or-may-not suffer any disadvantage over the older settlements, but will certainly attract fresh players and do just fine. It's the intent. The starter settlements and Wars of Towers are a boot-strap process to get the game rolling.
The game is about relationships.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IF you can't do something (like train to 20 unless you get in with what, at that time, will probably be a group of people who feel they can extract whatever from you because there are only a few places to train and you've already spent 6 months gaining the exp for your skills) in any way but one, that's too restrictive.
There won't be only one way: there'll be many Settlements offering training, even at advanced levels, so everyone should be able to find some price he's both willing and able to pay. What there's no design for, however, is a soloable high-level training option, perhaps an all-knowing hermit in a cave on a distant mountain, surrounded by ancient dragons and demi-gods who all need to be killed or bought off before one can approach the hermit for training; that would probably fall in Ryan's "wouldn't it be cool if X means nobody ever does X" category.
EDIT: if, by some confluence of events, training does get truly locked away, I've no doubt Goblinworks will find a way to break the log-jam, as they'll never let customers--those who are paying the bills--sit in a losing situation like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IF you can't do something (like train to 20 unless you get in with what, at that time, will probably be a group of people who feel they can extract whatever from you because there are only a few places to train and you've already spent 6 months gaining the exp for your skills) in any way but one, that's too restrictive.EDIT: if, by some confluence of events, training does get truly locked away, I've no doubt Goblinworks will find a way to break the log-jam, as they'll never let customers--those who are paying the bills--sit in a losing situation like that.
Exactly this. There will be settlements competing to offer training services at good prices to non-settlement members. There are likely to be far more "free cities" than closed off encampments - however there will also be two extra NPC towns with higher level trainers to implement if the need arises to break some sort of Cartel blocking training.
The game is about relationships.
Well, life is about relationships. I'd say that is one of the things, to break 'character' for a moment, I disdain about reality is that it's very about "who you know." It's somewhat sad that the game could turn out to be controlled by two things which, as I said before, could be akin to corporations.
And no, this wouldn't make me happier if I was in control of it, either. I just think it's bg. I think that this may limit pvp... real pvp... more than create it. There may be battles. They may snuff out little settlements, but the kind of pvp I want in a game (server wars etc), I dunno if that will happen. Too much to lose. That's one thing about the good old boy settlement model, once everyone has linked up, there's really no reason not to ally with the other people who can wreck you because if you built an empire from EE for 2 years then got wrecked (could happen regardless of alliance, but just saying), you'd probably RQ the game.
I actually have big plans for this game. I want to do a lot. I tend to believe, optimistically, that I will have no issue training no matter what because I can always 'be worthwhile.' But the idea that training could become something that you have to bend over backwards to get makes me unhappy as an idealist. I think the sandbox model is in beta, but I'd like to see some ground made in this game. Hopefully we can make it happen.
The secret trainers sound interesting or open training, but again that kind of destroys the idea of towers, right. It'd be cooler to be able to level up your own trainers in other ways.
Lastly, 20 or 30 people is a good goal, but if you are facing alliances led by 300 player groups + a bunch of satellites, it's pretty much gg.
Anyway, I'm down to try. 85 Dollars isn't a huge loss, but I am starting to get a bit worried by playing out scenarios in my mind. I always look at the "path of least resistance" as to what will likely happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lastly, 20 or 30 people is a good goal, but if you are facing alliances led by 300 player groups + a bunch of satellites, it's pretty much gg.
Worth noting that CFC (the coalition that includes Goons) in EVE has around 40,000 players and large coalition conflicts can involve several thousand players per side fighting in the same system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry to have to ask, but three abbreviations in one post I didn't understand, even with context. Translations, please?...I just think it's bg.
...
...you'd probably RQ the game.
...
...it's pretty much gg.
Guessing "BG" was meant to be "BS".
RQ = rage quit. In a moment of passion, a player gives up on the game and has a bad taste in their mouth about it.
GG = good game. Commonly used in multiplayer games to congratulate the winning team or to indicate surrender. Often seen in RTS games, where the end of the game is clear a while before the game actually would end.
lol bg definitely meant to be bs, based on context. GG is slang for when "its over long before it over."
@ Celest: we have no idea what is going to happen at this point, so probably best to just let it go and wait and see. In the mean time, I think it will be $85 well spent.
On the point of starting with 20-30 people, that is strictly for EE and starting out in a settlement. I think the expectation of whoever said that (sorry!) is that the settlement would grow and, preferably, grow quickly.
On the topic of a "lock down" on training, I get the sense that this community would never let that happen. Some settlements, by their nature as good settlements run by goodhearted people, will always be open to train you. Maybe there will be a fee associated with it, but it won't be prohibitive.
There is also the simple question of how much do the actions of a few power gamers at the top really affect the daily lives of the masses at the bottom? The flavor may change a little bit here and there; but the opportunity to participate will always be there. In my opinion. Being that I have never played Eve. Or looked into it much.
Sorry to have to ask, but three abbreviations in one post I didn't understand, even with context. Translations, please?...I just think it's bg.
...
...you'd probably RQ the game.
...
...it's pretty much gg.
Halo,
yeah
GG is good game which would be a sporting phrase that has been kind of used by gamers. In some instances condescendingly.
BG is, conversely, bad game. Which would be the opposite.
RQ, as explained is rage quit.
Peace.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Usually accompanied by a forum rant, the appropriate response to which is "can I have all your stuff" . :DRQ = rage quit. In a moment of passion, a player gives up on the game and has a bad taste in their mouth about it.
Sometimes they actually do give away their stuff, to reduce the temptation to come back and give the game another chance. They usually give it to their friends, though, not people mocking them on the forum.