Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the early days of any sandbox game, things are chaotic, undefined, exciting, and full of opportunity and rapid change. As time goes on, alliances stabilize, tactical improvisation evolves into doctrine, the pace of political change slows and then stops; what once was sand, is now concrete.
For anyone who wants to skip right past the fun part of the server timeline and jump ahead to endgame stasis, here are a few simple steps:
1) Grow your faction as large as possible before the game starts
2) NAP everybody
3) Have assigned seating towers for all the major powers on the server (bonus, strongly incents the minor settlements to join up with a larger group as quickly as possible!)
4) Draw borders which clearly delineate the approved zones of control for each power. Fence up that map- don't leave any uncertainty about which hex is whose!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This honestly is not meant as an attack on any individual or group. Striving to reduce uncertainty is natural, understandable, and inevitable, and if I hadn't already repeatedly seen the results I'd probably be doing the same thing. Please for the love of gaming don't do it. Removing uncertainty may be good for you but it is bad, bad, bad for the game.
Our sandbox will inevitably turn into concrete over the course of time. If it takes long enough, GW will have expanded the map or provided other options which prevent the whole system from grinding to a halt the way Eve did before wormhole space.
However, if we work hard enough at it, we can significantly accelerate the slide to stasis and make sure that we reach gridlock long before the devs have a chance to give us those new options. If this happens, there's a serious possibility that the whole game will fail.
For as long as possible, please do your best to keep friendships and conflicts local, specific, and discrete. Embrace the uncertainty of poorly-defined borders and towers with no clear and permanent ownership.
Let's find out who owns that tower organically. It'll be fun.
Just between us,
I think it's time for us to realize:
The spaces in between
Leave room
For you and I to grow
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be fair, what is being talked about, is just for WoT, everything goes out the window when PoIs come into play.
Towers are much easier to take and maintain than PoIs, and require a lot less people. As soon as PoIs hit, everyone's territory will take a big hit, borders will be destroyed, and things will be extremely uncertain as we push our way through the newly restored sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TLDR: the Tower Wars are a short term anomaly and there is no reason to believe that how they are handled will have any effect at all on the long term playability of the game.
We are about to enter the Beta, not the final product, and the Tower Wars (as opposed to the hexes and POIs that underlie many of those towers) are a discrete period in PFOnline. I have not heard anyone talk about sewing up which hexes belong to who (Though I am hardly at the center of activity in the game).
The ability to move freely about the map and attack any tower you want is of great value to a subset (of unknown size, perhaps large) of players who are primarily interested in fighting other player-characters. Any agreements to not fight over some towers, while leaving other towers to the whims of fate, (of which I am aware) are primarily of interest to those who don't want to have their training stymied by an artificial cap around ability to manage those towers.
Many, many, many of us couldn't give a flying f*ck who owns the towers, and appealing to us to let that ownership be established organically will require offering something that we actually do care about.
If we can assure that our settlement has adequate training for our citizens and allies, then I am happy to have you pick a tower somewhere to fight over and I will do my best to stop you from killing me there for as long as I can stomach it.
Please do not pretend that our efforts to peacefully ensure training, for the next few months, for those people that don't care about the tower wars, are going to spoil the game in the long term.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is much better to agree to an uneasy peace early than it is to be left a target for the rest of the map for the good of the game.
If the North and South power blocks want a WoT basis for relative peace, they will likely get it with minimal effort. I don't know if it is best for the game in the short or long term. I do know that for those wanting to maintain the settlement game as long as possible martyrdom is a poor option.
If enough political strength calls for it, and it remains open to everyone, it will get signed by anyone that does not consider their settlement an afterthought.
It will get signed after the WoT, if that is what most of the map wishes. It will break down only when someone decides to move aggressively first. The rest of the games history will follow that event.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forgot to add, the ability of major power blocks to persuade peace (even if it is just during WoT) is meaningful interaction. The ability of imposing social consequence (if that becomes a thing, not saying that is happening here) would also be a meaningful interaction.
If it happens, I don't see it lasting forever. It could be extended post WoT with some potentially positive boons to the settlements that buy in. If it does it will most certainly be disturbed some time. It is basically a staring contest. Someone is bound to blink first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of the human psychological drivers towards stability and certainty which led to the current proposal will still exist when the WoT ends. And then layer on top of that the common human tendency to irrationally prefer whatever it is that we already have. There's every reason to worry that this temporary, interim plan will calcify into a long term status quo, as so many temporary, interim plans do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If all of the towers are in there from the beginning, there will initially be towers for everyone with plenty to spare when it comes to training bonuses. There won't be a need to compete until after many months, when people have acquired enough XP to wish for higher level training.
To get this thing going early on, I think towers need to either provide bonuses which are initially low but gradually increasing as EE moves on or there needs to be fewer towers at the onset and more later on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the common human tendency to irrationally prefer whatever it is that we already have.
That nature has spent millennia optimizing the majority for this strategy while a minority profit from the difference is a sign that it is a successful strategy for the species. Calling it irrational does not make it so, nor does being in a successful minority make one right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If all of the towers are in there from the beginning, there will initially be towers for everyone with plenty to spare when it comes to training bonuses. There won't be a need to compete until after many months, when people have acquired enough XP to wish for higher level training.
To get this thing going early on, I think towers need to either provide bonuses which are initially low but gradually increasing as EE moves on or there needs to be fewer towers at the onset and more later on.
Form what I remember, as long as you hold on to a tower your settlement acquires some type of DI to be spent after the WotT to help your settlement get off the ground. The longer and more towers you hold on to the more DI you get.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Golgotha's voting body is unanimously in favor of the tower NAP as it is presented. We'll discuss what we want to do when OE hits, but for now, we are content with the relative stability that this NAP would provide the whole server.
We honor our agreements, and will abide by any stipulations set therein. A man is only as good as his word after all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a couple of guys on the internet think they can stop 20,000 players who signed up for a PVP game from doing the only PVP that doesn't wreck your reputation? Don't think that's gonna work, or did I read this wrong and the leaders want to PVP and did not make a lets-not-pvp deal?
It is a real jaw dropper if it is true that leaders are gonna try to divide up the towers and not PVP, dumbest thing I have heard of so I must just be understanding it wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Golgotha's voting body is unanimously in favor of the tower NAP as it is presented. We'll discuss what we want to do when OE hits, but for now, we are content with the relative stability that this NAP would provide the whole server.
We honor our agreements, and will abide by any stipulations set therein. A man is only as good as his word after all.
The votes for on the Callambea side are heavily in the "for" category as well.
The empire voting entities are unanimously for as well.
Our word can not be overstated, it was a huge reason it took us as long as it did to decide. Once we agree to something, we are bound by it.
It is the first block in the foundation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Nation of Kathalphas (Aragon and Freevale) have signed on to the NAP, with two caveats. The first, it only applies to designated Towers. The second, it only has the duration leading up to the great cataclysm.
Although there seems to be this impression that if one group violates this agreement, all others will respond in action against the violator, that has not been agreed upon nor suggested by the originators of this idea.
This is a Non Aggression Pact, not a Mutual Defense Pact, and it is limited in scope and duration.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Nation of Kathalphas (Aragon and Freevale) have signed on to the NAP, with two caveats. The first, it only applies to designated Towers. The second, it only has the duration leading up to the great cataclysm.
Although there seems to be this impression that if one group violates this agreement, all others will respond in action against the violator, that has not been agreed upon nor suggested by the originators of this idea.
This is a Non Aggression Pact, not a Mutual Defense Pact, and it is limited in scope and duration.
I wouldn't say it's so much that the signatories are compelled or obligated to respond to the violator. I would say it's a smart and sound logical choice that everyone would make, regardless of prior social connections.
Think of it like this, everyone is friends, and you're the odd man out, who has just lost the protections of the NAP. It means, your territory is up for grabs by everyone now, and with no natural enemy, except said violator, then it makes sense I would go after you.
I want more towers, no one besides the violator will take mine, so I might as well take theirs too! It's essentially free loot, because you lack protections. There is nothing stopping me, and no reason not to, after all it's free loot, with no political consequences to boot! Who wouldn't go for that? It would be a gold rush to take their stuff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... no one besides the violator will take mine...ahaha, I like your optimism !
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.
Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's going to be local agreements where people who get along don't mess with each other.
That just means that the battles will be with people less local.
As opposed to "the only thing a MacDonald hates more than the English is a Campbell" :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Notmyrealname
No, what we are doing is insuring the stability of training for the first 1-2 months of the game. Anything beyond specifically designated towers will be fought over.
If you want to craft T2 gear, you essentially need access to 11-13 towers(even then you can only make level 8-10 stuff). This is where the fighting will begin and in earnest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Notmyrealname
No, what we are doing is insuring the stability of training for the first 1-2 months of the game. Anything beyond specifically designated towers will be fought over.
If you want to craft T2 gear, you essentially need access to 11-13 towers(even then you can only make level 8-10 stuff). This is where the fighting will begin and in earnest.
So what on earth would you need for T3 gear ? It would seem T3 could only exist if Settlements fail or large Settlements create satellites that hand all their adjoining towers over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Notmyrealname
No, what we are doing is insuring the stability of training for the first 1-2 months of the game. Anything beyond specifically designated towers will be fought over.
If you want to craft T2 gear, you essentially need access to 11-13 towers(even then you can only make level 8-10 stuff). This is where the fighting will begin and in earnest.
Ok thanks .However I see two problems here, first settlement vs settlement pvp is the backbone of PFO and you leaders don't seem to want that in earnest ,just half way there. Second ,what about the 19,500 players that will be joining EE with the 500 that post here. There are some serious game elements missing that have given a few control over the many, there is no way for a majority to remove an elitist minority who are in control of the 40 settlements. That is way to much power in the hands of a few to control the gameplay for many others.
Not that deal making isn't legitimate gameplay but the balance is missing, those you make deals for cant remove you in a PVP way. I'm all for stability but it should be something you have earned by your strength, not just externally but also earned the right to run a settlement and risk losing control too.
Just how I see things but why do you think all the people joining EE want it to be so 'tame'.
All of the human psychological drivers towards stability and certainty which led to the current proposal will still exist when the WoT ends. And then layer on top of that the common human tendency to irrationally prefer whatever it is that we already have. There's every reason to worry that this temporary, interim plan will calcify into a long term status quo, as so many temporary, interim plans do.
I might have some lawful evil interest. You are growing on me. lol. In both ways, whether you are serious or just being sarcastic and making fun of me, I am intrigued by both.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Notmyrealname
No, what we are doing is insuring the stability of training for the first 1-2 months of the game. Anything beyond specifically designated towers will be fought over.
If you want to craft T2 gear, you essentially need access to 11-13 towers(even then you can only make level 8-10 stuff). This is where the fighting will begin and in earnest.
Ok thanks .However I see two problems here, first settlement vs settlement pvp is the backbone of PFO and you leaders don't seem to want that in earnest ,just half way there. Second ,what about the 19,500 players that will be joining EE with the 500 that post here. There are some serious game elements missing that have given a few control over the many, there is no way for a majority to remove an elitist minority who are in control of the 40 settlements. That is way to much power in the hands of a few to control the gameplay for many others.
Not that deal making isn't legitimate gameplay but the balance is missing, those you make deals for cant remove you in a PVP way. I'm all for stability but it should be something you have earned by your strength, not just externally but also earned the right to run a settlement and risk losing control too.
Just how I see things but why do you think all the people joining EE want it to be so 'tame'.
You do realize the EE map is just a tiny fraction of the final map and it is going to expand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there are 19,500 players who want to run a settlement, the remaining 500 won't matter. 40 to 1 odds don't end well for the little guy.
With that many people, settlements will work to accomodate them, as warm bodies are warm bodies. Some groups might not want to, but if their neighbor picks up 300 people, you'll be they start recruiting.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
So what on earth would you need for T3 gear ?@Notmyrealname
No, what we are doing is insuring the stability of training for the first 1-2 months of the game. Anything beyond specifically designated towers will be fought over.
If you want to craft T2 gear, you essentially need access to 11-13 towers(even then you can only make level 8-10 stuff). This is where the fighting will begin and in earnest.
More XP than will be available at the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nmrn
There will be NO settlement vs settlement PvP proper at all during the War of Towers game. I'm sure towers will be won and lost among all the players involved during EE, there will be no shortage of fights to be had, just not wars.
That comes later.
You kind of just said that there will be no wars in The War (of Towers).Is that how the devs designed it to work or is it just the vision of the few here on the forum, the majority that join later in EE will just push back against any attempt to hold them from doing what amounts to meaningful pvp as opposed to a 'it doesn't matter very much' level of pvp.
If you take all the towers from a settlement you have 'won' a war against them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... no one besides the violator will take mine...ahaha, I like your optimism !I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.
Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.
With no intention to speak for anyone, he might be pointing out that not everyone has signed the NAP. If a non-signatory wants one of your towers, they could attack you just as easily as a signer who has violated the NAP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With no intention to speak for anyone, he might be pointing out that not everyone has signed the NAP. If a non-signatory wants one of your towers, they could attack you just as easily as a signer who has violated the NAP.... no one besides the violator will take mine...ahaha, I like your optimism !I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.
Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.
Anyone who hasn't signed this NAP, or who isn't at least in favor of it, are to my knowledge fairly small entities of ten to twenty people. Those are fairly negligible numbers in the grand scheme of things. Now if all those small entities organized, and formed a power block that would be a different story, but again to my knowledge they haven't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nmrn
There will be NO settlement vs settlement PvP proper at all during the War of Towers game. I'm sure towers will be won and lost among all the players involved during EE, there will be no shortage of fights to be had, just not wars.
That comes later.
You kind of just said that there will be no wars in The War (of Towers).Is that how the devs designed it to work or is it just the vision of the few here on the forum, the majority that join later in EE will just push back against any attempt to hold them from doing what amounts to meaningful pvp as opposed to a 'it doesn't matter very much' level of pvp.
If you take all the towers from a settlement you have 'won' a war against them.
Again not intending to speak for anyone (but nearly doing it anyway, I know), Carbon specified "settlement vs settlement PVP proper." Later on, there will be a formal game mechanic called a war. That mechanic won't exist yet during the "War" of Towers, so in a very technical sense, the name of this early conflict is a misnomer.
Edit: Maybe it should have been called the Tussle of Towers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nmrn
There will be NO settlement vs settlement PvP proper at all during the War of Towers game. I'm sure towers will be won and lost among all the players involved during EE, there will be no shortage of fights to be had, just not wars.
That comes later.
You kind of just said that there will be no wars in The War (of Towers).Is that how the devs designed it to work or is it just the vision of the few here on the forum, the majority that join later in EE will just push back against any attempt to hold them from doing what amounts to meaningful pvp as opposed to a 'it doesn't matter very much' level of pvp.
If you take all the towers from a settlement you have 'won' a war against them.
Again not intending to speak for anyone (but nearly doing it anyway, I know), Carbon specified "settlement vs settlement PVP proper." Later on, there will be a formal game mechanic called a war. That mechanic won't exist yet during the "War" of Towers, so in a very technical sense, the name of this early conflict is a misnomer.
Edit: Maybe it should have been called the Tussle of Towers.
Presumably with a proper war declaration any member of the opposing settlement can be freely attacked without Rep loss at any time.
There is no indication this is happening during the "War of the Towers" so no its not a proper war.
As far as the politics goes, my impression was small groups eventually should form chartered companies that will generally choose to affiliate with a settlement but, outside wartime, are free to swap and change settlements as they see fit. It may even be quite viable to be unaffiliated for long periods and hook up with a settlement again when you need to train/trade.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... no one besides the violator will take mine...ahaha, I like your optimism !I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.
Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.
I'm saying if someone in an NAP group violates the NAP, the group should consider making a 'proportionate response', not cry 'free lunch', lest the entire NAP become one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anyone who hasn't signed this NAP, or who isn't at least in favor of it, are to my knowledge fairly small entities of ten to twenty people. Those are fairly negligible numbers in the grand scheme of things. Now if all those small entities organized, and formed a power block that would be a different story, but again to my knowledge they haven't.With no intention to speak for anyone, he might be pointing out that not everyone has signed the NAP. If a non-signatory wants one of your towers, they could attack you just as easily as a signer who has violated the NAP.... no one besides the violator will take mine...ahaha, I like your optimism !I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.
Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.
oh, and the NAP non-signers? Remember that there are thousands of EE accounts that have never visited these boards, we do not know what we will see when EE goes live.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying if someone in an NAP group violates the NAP, the group should consider making a 'proportionate response', not cry 'free lunch', lest the entire NAP become one.... no one besides the violator will take mine...ahaha, I like your optimism !I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.
Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.
That follows too much cohesion, it is not the full NAP group saying free lunch, rather it is one group in that NAP deciding to take the towers of the violator, and then others following suit.
I'm unsure of what a properly portioned response would be, that would make economical sense. If I sign an agreement, I expect that agreement to be held to the letter of the law, if someone breaks that agreement, that trust is then broken. I'm not going to say, well it was only once, and appease them, instead I would assume they would do it again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
oh, and the NAP non-signers? Remember that there are thousands of EE accounts that have never visited these boards, we do not know what we will see when EE goes live.Anyone who hasn't signed this NAP, or who isn't at least in favor of it, are to my knowledge fairly small entities of ten to twenty people. Those are fairly negligible numbers in the grand scheme of things. Now if all those small entities organized, and formed a power block that would be a different story, but again to my knowledge they haven't.With no intention to speak for anyone, he might be pointing out that not everyone has signed the NAP. If a non-signatory wants one of your towers, they could attack you just as easily as a signer who has violated the NAP.... no one besides the violator will take mine...ahaha, I like your optimism !I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.
Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.
There are also a large number of people that only backed it for the great value on the pdfs/books, and not for the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying if someone in an NAP group violates the NAP, the group should consider making a 'proportionate response', not cry 'free lunch', lest the entire NAP become one.
I'm not sure I follow. If there are 20 groups in a non-aggression pact, and someone aggresses, the other 19 are going to fall on him, tear chunks from his flesh, and dance around a bonfire made from whatever possessions he has that no one wants.
It will serve as a marvelous warning to each of the 19 not to follow the path the 20th took. That 20th had a choice, made the "wrong" one, and knew what would happen when he made it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm saying if someone in an NAP group violates the NAP, the group should consider making a 'proportionate response', not cry 'free lunch', lest the entire NAP become one.... no one besides the violator will take mine...ahaha, I like your optimism !I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.
Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.
That follows too much cohesion, it is not the full NAP group saying free lunch, rather it is one group in that NAP deciding to take the towers of the violator, and then others following suit.
I'm unsure of what a properly portioned response would be, that would make economical sense. If I sign an agreement, I expect that agreement to be held to the letter of the law, if someone breaks that agreement, that trust is then broken. I'm not going to say, well it was only once, and appease them, instead I would assume they would do it again.
I was thinking if they took 1 tower, the group reduces them by 2, for a day, then all return to 'normal'. If they had one company go rogue, the rest of them could be pushed to follow suit by too aggressive a punishment. It's 10 companies to hold 10 towers, and by support rules, they may be from different Land rush groups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm saying if someone in an NAP group violates the NAP, the group should consider making a 'proportionate response', not cry 'free lunch', lest the entire NAP become one.I'm not sure I follow. If there are 20 groups in a non-aggression pact, and someone aggresses, the other 19 are going to fall on him, tear chunks from his flesh, and dance around a bonfire made from whatever possessions he has that no one wants.
It will serve as a marvelous warning to each of the 19 not to follow the path the 20th took. That 20th had a choice, made the "wrong" one, and knew what would happen when he made it.
This^
Social consequence is not only a possibility, it is a tactfully sound move.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking if they took 1 tower, the group reduces them by 2, for a day, then all return to 'normal'. If they had one company go rogue, the rest of them could be pushed to follow suit by too aggressive a punishment. It's 10 companies to hold 10 towers, and by support rules, they may be from different Land rush groups.I'm saying if someone in an NAP group violates the NAP, the group should consider making a 'proportionate response', not cry 'free lunch', lest the entire NAP become one.... no one besides the violator will take mine...ahaha, I like your optimism !I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.
Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.
That follows too much cohesion, it is not the full NAP group saying free lunch, rather it is one group in that NAP deciding to take the towers of the violator, and then others following suit.
I'm unsure of what a properly portioned response would be, that would make economical sense. If I sign an agreement, I expect that agreement to be held to the letter of the law, if someone breaks that agreement, that trust is then broken. I'm not going to say, well it was only once, and appease them, instead I would assume they would do it again.
Social ramifications rarely roll uphill. The fingers will point at the settlement or block and fall from there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking if they took 1 tower, the group reduces them by 2, for a day, then all return to 'normal'. If they had one company go rogue, the rest of them could be pushed to follow suit by too aggressive a punishment. It's 10 companies to hold 10 towers, and by support rules, they may be from different Land rush groups.I'm saying if someone in an NAP group violates the NAP, the group should consider making a 'proportionate response', not cry 'free lunch', lest the entire NAP become one.... no one besides the violator will take mine...ahaha, I like your optimism !I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, unless you mean that I will have already over extended past my 10 designated towers before then.
Otherwise that puts said person in the position of violator, which again, isn't a wise choice if everyone else upholds it.
That follows too much cohesion, it is not the full NAP group saying free lunch, rather it is one group in that NAP deciding to take the towers of the violator, and then others following suit.
I'm unsure of what a properly portioned response would be, that would make economical sense. If I sign an agreement, I expect that agreement to be held to the letter of the law, if someone breaks that agreement, that trust is then broken. I'm not going to say, well it was only once, and appease them, instead I would assume they would do it again.
To that I say a man is not only judged by the content of his character, but also by the company he keeps. If he is unable to reign in that rogue unit, before they go rogue, then it is his fault for not doing enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that the Settlement must accept a Tower being pledged to it, it should be pretty obvious who the transgressor is, and that it was not something done by a rogue agent.
My hope is that anyone who violates the Tower NAP will have all of their Towers taken from them for at least a day, and only returned if they reaffirm the NAP. A second transgression should not be forgiven.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Given that the Settlement must accept a Tower being pledged to it, it should be pretty obvious who the transgressor is, and that it was not something done by a rogue agent.
My hope is that anyone who violates the Tower NAP will have all of their Towers taken from them for at least a day, and only returned if they reaffirm the NAP. A second transgression should not be forgiven.
Wow, that's actually more lenient than I would call for. I would likely not be for a second chance at all.
If that becomes apart of the agreement, sure. Otherwise I don't see a reason to trust an entity that can't control a whole company. A lone player problem here and there maybe deserves some leeway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think something greater about a NAP is lost in this conversation.
A NAP allows a settlement to focus its interest. It allows the settlement and its members the opportunity to enforce and train its doctrine, the ability to narrow its interest on the political stage, and finally it presents the settlement with the chance to build itself up.
All of these factors will allow that settlement to be more successful. Successful settlements will draw members, more members allow a settlement to engage in higher risk activities.
From my understanding a NAP for the WotT is a direct relation to that settlements DI. The fact that we can secure the growth necessary to ensure success is a two way street that will only allow settlements to be more successful.
Just my 2 cents on the subject.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Given that the Settlement must accept a Tower being pledged to it, it should be pretty obvious who the transgressor is, and that it was not something done by a rogue agent.
My hope is that anyone who violates the Tower NAP will have all of their Towers taken from them for at least a day, and only returned if they reaffirm the NAP. A second transgression should not be forgiven.
There are strategies and tactics beyond keeping the tower, or defending against the groups 'punishment', but it's mostly moot; a violator IS highly unlikely.
The NAP settlements have told GW what roles they wanted their premade settlements to support, and folks of those roles will be in those settlements. Every settlement will be a melting pot of many land rush 'guilds'. It will be outsiders, and unknowns, who are the rogue elements in WotT.