Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ladies, Gentlemen, and Developers,
After a very good meeting, with representation from all power blocks, we were able to re-write the document, extensively, and incorporate all of the things discussed. I wanted to say thank you to Nihimon and Pexx for helping quite a bit with the document re-writing, and Pino for recording the meeting.
In general, I would like for all the leadership to overlook the document and give their suggestions, concerns, or their OK with the current document. This review process will last 48 hours from this post, after which we will incorporate anything that might be needed, and re-post for actual signing prior to EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ladies, Gentlemen, and Developers,
After a very good meeting, with representation from all power blocks, we were able to re-write the document, extensively, and incorporate all of the things discussed. I wanted to say thank you to Nihimon and Pexx for helping quite a bit with the document re-writing, and Pino for recording the meeting.
In general, I would like for all the leadership to overlook the document and give their suggestions, concerns, or their OK with the current document. This review process will last 48 hours from this post, after which we will incorporate anything that might be needed, and re-post for actual signing prior to EE.
I suggest they "Look Over" the document... ;-)
Thanks once again to Cheatle for providing the forum for the community to get together. It provided us with another opportunity to work together in an attempt to create a foundation for player settlement interaction in the sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My bad, I had waited for hours for Paizo to come back online, woke up, and posted it right away.
I have high hopes for this community, the game, and our ability to help build both of them in a positive manner. Several of you have already taken steps in the right direction to solidify lasting positive relations founded on respect and trust, which we will all need in the future. I am happy to help in any capacity to see this community grow, and provide any opportunity for that growth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You define the "Core 6 towers" initially and then never use the term again. You could change the multiple references in the later text to a variation of "the 6 towers immediately surrounding a Settlement" to "Core 6 towers". Just being nit-picky, however, this is hardly a serious concern.
Also, I thought it was agreed in the first meeting that screenshots are of no use as "evidence". Why did that get back in?
I assume it's because even gaining points on a tower is (unlike before) now considered a violation. As I understand the mechanic, gaining points itself doesn't make a difference for another company's attempt. Only actually reaching 1000 points first would make a difference (and would constitute a violation in the original version of the NAP). How will the screenshots show that I was entering the ring (and gained a point or two in the process) to support the defenders via healing?
Imho, that is an unneccessary change from the previous version that will potentially cause unneeded controversy.
" Signatories also agree not to attempt to capture any of the Towers adjacent to a Protected Settlement for the first week of the War of Towers." Is this meant to imply that if protected settlements don't take all 6 of their core towers within one week, that signatories can attempt to capture them? I would assume not, so this needs to be rephrased.
Other than that, I agree that all references to the 6 towers should be changed to refer to them as "core towers."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How are screen shots of no use as evidence?
Not evidence enough to produce a sanction, but enough evidence to support an allegation that would then be taken up.
There is also the need for physical verification. Three member panel will visit the hex in question and confirm via ownership of the tower, if the NAP was indeed violated.
.@Fierywind
Basically everyone is under the NAP even if they did not sign. If you signed it you have certain privileges over non signers as stated in the document.
If you violate the NAP you may be banned from it and the NAP won't apply to that settlements core six anymore thus making the violators in questions core six contestable by all settlements.
If a settlement for whatever reason does not capture it's core six during the 1st week of WoT rather it be laziness, inactivity, or just don't want their towers after that week they will be up for grabs by all settlements. However if they decide they want their towers after the fact or become active once again the temporary owners, will back off and let the settlement reclaim their core six after they prove that they are active and have communicated that they want them.
@Pexx
That's understandable, but that's already covered in the active/inactive system, so it'd make more sense imo to say that settlements will be declared inactive if they don't claim their 6 towers in the first week.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Pexx
That's understandable, but that's already covered in the active/inactive system, so it'd make more sense imo to say that settlements will be declared inactive if they don't claim their 6 towers in the first week.
That's not the only way that Settlements can be declared Inactive.
" Signatories also agree not to attempt to capture any of the Towers adjacent to a Protected Settlement for the first week of the War of Towers." Is this meant to imply that if protected settlements don't take all 6 of their core towers within one week, that signatories can attempt to capture them? I would assume not, so this needs to be rephrased.
Actually, that's exactly what it means. But they would still have to abide by the part that says they must not contest that Settlement's attempts to control those Towers.
If Settlement A doesn't capture its Core 6 Towers during the first week of the War of Towers, then those Towers are up for grabs. However, as soon as Settlement A attempts to control any of its Core 6 Towers, any Settlement that contests those attempts will be in violation of the NAP.
OK, that still can be covered in the active/inactive clause though. Instead of making a specific clause dealing with capturing towers after a week, why not say that, among the other ways a settlement can be declared inactive, they are automatically considered as such if they fail to take all 6 towers in the first week, and they must have the signatories vote to make them active again?
Hmmm, I see. So we're actually starting EE with a list of inactive settlements, rather than deciding it afterwards?
People are still free...they can choose to take actions that would get them removed from the NAP, but freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm, I see. So we're actually starting EE with a list of inactive settlements, rather than deciding it afterwards?
As far as I can tell a settlement will be deemed as inactive if, after a period of 1 week in, they have not made an effort to grab thier core 6 towers. No one is considered inactive before a chance to be active.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't understand your complaint, Zodiac107. Nobody is wielding anything over anybody except ourselves. If you aren't in a signatory settlement, you can do whatever you want. If you don't attack anybody else's core six, then nobody will go after yours because we've decided to treat you as friendly. If you capture a tower in somebody else's core six, then you have indicated you don't want to be protected by the agreement and anyone can contest you for any tower you hold.
You are entirely free to do whatever you want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My Philosophy on the NAP:
I'm not sure why everybody else is participating, but my theory is that for our settlements to be successful, we want to give new players a good reason to leave the starter settlements and move out in to the world to work beside a Player team. Giving every settlement the opportunity to make sure their settlement is as good as the NPC starter towns at offering training is good for all of us. Frankly, I'd be happier of the NPC towns didn't offer anything above level 1
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel like you are defending a principal that either doesn't exist, or comes from a flawed understanding.
There is no sword. This is purely a carrot agreement. Those who want to make things easier by co-operating have an opportunity to be part of an agreement to do so. Those who don't want to, are under no obligation. Nobody is threatening to punish them for failure to comply. If they attack, they may be attacked, as the game intends. If they don't, they won't.
As well to be annoyed by a state that says we will recognize your marriage if you already married in one of the other 50 states even though 8 of them haven't specifically said they'll do the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The whole "If you don´t break our rules that you didn´t agree to, then we will do nothing to you" have huge implications. Turn it around and it could be read as "If you break our rules that you didn´t agreed to, then you are free game."
Well, yes. In exactly the same way that society says "if you don't speed, we won't give you a ticket for speeding." If you do speed, you are free game for the police to issue a ticket, whether you agree to speeding laws or not.
@bringslite
That was my impression, but Nihimon mentioned that "inactive" settlements are protected for the first week of WoT, which implies we'll have settlements considered inactive before the week is up. If it's the case that settlements default to inactive after a one week period should they fail to claim their core towers, it should be written as such in the NAP, rather than the current (and confusing) text "Signatories also agree not to attempt to capture any of the Towers adjacent to a Protected Settlement for the first week of the War of Towers." How exactly does that differ from the normal protection afforded to Protected settlements under the NAP? It needs to be clarified with the active/inactive distinction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would oppose the notion that non signatory settlements would be encompassed by NAP. Frankly i find it disgusting that third parties try to wield their power of "democracy" over "free" people. Just the notion of it makes me want to rebell and screw it all over.
Settlements that don't sign are still protected by the NAP. They're under no obligations whatsoever, except that the protections of the NAP can be withdrawn.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... which implies we'll have settlements considered inactive before the week is up.
No, it doesn't imply that.
It implies that even if there are officially declared Inactive Settlements prior to the end of the first week, those Settlements are still protected. The protection for the first week supersedes the lack of protection for Inactive Settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It´s the principle that matters to me, im that kind of man. Regardless of it´s effect and what it´s supposed to achieve. The whole "If you don´t break our rules that you didn´t agree to, then we will do nothing to you" have huge implications. Turn it around and it could be read as "If you break our rules that you didn´t agreed to, then you are free game."
More like "if you don't want to agree to our policies, we we'll still assume you are not our enemy until you demonstrate otherwise." The NAP does not limit the actions of non-signatories in any way. There is no "Sword of Damocles" involved. There is no clause that states "Everyone must immediately declare feud against non-covered settlements". Basically, if you don't want in, pretend you never heard of the agreement at all. The NAP will have zero effect on your gameplay.
"...every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he can hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, ... he may seek, and use, all helps and advantages of Warre."
Which is fine Nihimon, and I understand the explanation...but it can be clarified in the document.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Zodiac
I understand that you feel uncomfortable with the Damocles sword over you.
The alternative likely would have been a sword in your back if you didn't join.
The NAP means that the larger and or more active groups take a step back and give the smaller ones a change. The only benefit for them is a hopefully better community.
Tell me an alternative that would have worked better for alliances/settlements not interacting and I listen.
Not liking it just because of principle is non constructive.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The NAP has to protect everyone, because one of the reasons it is necessary is that everyone agreed that letting smaller settlements have a chance during the War of Towers was the Right Thing To Do.
However, competitive people noticed that if some settlements didn't push in on weaker settlements, but others did, the aggressive settlements might have a significant advantage.
Since the competitive players don't want to be at a perceived disadvantage, and nobody really wants to marginalize smaller groups, part of the agreement had to set a norm of not gaining fair advantage by obliterating a smaller group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I assume it's because even gaining points on a tower is (unlike before) now considered a violation. As I understand the mechanic, gaining points itself doesn't make a difference for another company's attempt. Only actually reaching 1000 points first would make a difference (and would constitute a violation in the original version of the NAP). How will the screenshots show that I was entering the ring (and gained a point or two in the process) to support the defenders via healing?
Imho, that is an unneccessary change from the previous version that will potentially cause unneeded controversy.
Just visiting an allied settlement could lead to scoring a couple of points on one of their towers. For example, there could be a 100% escalation in a hex, and avoiding mobs might take you within capture range of a tower. Does it really say that scoring one point on a tower is a violation?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the intent there was that a settlement doesn't have to wait until the tower is lost to act in their defense. There are no NAP police, so the only way a violation has any standing is if it was reported as such. If our allies are pointing fingers in the middle of a fight saying "get out of our tower or we're telling", we'll get new allies fairly quickly; but I think that sort of player is unlikely to be a signatory in the first place.
If I were heading out of TH and spotted a group of 6 people hanging out in one of our towers as the PvP window opened, I might report a violation on the spot. But I'm not going to lurk in the woods watching for one. Probably.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just visiting an allied settlement could lead to scoring a couple of points on one of their towers. For example, there could be a 100% escalation in a hex, and avoiding mobs might take you within capture range of a tower. Does it really say that scoring one point on a tower is a violation?I assume it's because even gaining points on a tower is (unlike before) now considered a violation. As I understand the mechanic, gaining points itself doesn't make a difference for another company's attempt. Only actually reaching 1000 points first would make a difference (and would constitute a violation in the original version of the NAP). How will the screenshots show that I was entering the ring (and gained a point or two in the process) to support the defenders via healing?
Imho, that is an unneccessary change from the previous version that will potentially cause unneeded controversy.
Contesting a Protected Settlement's attempts to control one of their adjacent Towers is a violation. The Tribunal that finds the Accused credible when theey say "Hey, I was just passing through and only got like 1 Capture Point" is likely to ask the Petitioner "Why are you wasting our time?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the intent there was that a settlement doesn't have to wait until the tower is lost to act in their defense. There are no NAP police, so the only way a violation has any standing is if it was reported as such. If our allies are pointing fingers in the middle of a fight saying "get out of our tower or we're telling", we'll get new allies fairly quickly; but I think that sort of player is unlikely to be a signatory in the first place.
If I were heading out of TH and spotted a group of 6 people hanging out in one of our towers as the PvP window opened, I might report a violation on the spot. But I'm not going to lurk in the woods watching for one. Probably.
That makes sense. My worry was more that someone might come out to check on their tower during the PVP window, see that I scored a point on it on my way through the hex 30 minutes ago, and declare my Settlement in violation of the NAP. Hopefully, cooler heads would prevail in such an obvious case of no hostile intent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would be unusual. Six characters would build up 144 capture points if they stood there for 2 minutes, but those points would melt away in just 12 minutes when they left.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That makes sense. My worry was more that someone might come out to check on their tower during the PVP window, see that I scored a point on it on my way through the hex 30 minutes ago, and declare my Settlement in violation of the NAP. Hopefully, cooler heads would prevail in such an obvious case of no hostile intent.That would be unusual. Six characters would build up 144 capture points if they stood there for 2 minutes, but those points would melt away in just 12 minutes when they left.
Oh yeah. I forgot that the points decay over time if the tower isn't captured before the aggressors leave the claim area. My one or two points from crossing the hex would disappear almost immediately. Objection formally withdrawn.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There seems so much anxiety about proofs, fake of proofs, loop holes, unintentionally being accused etc.
The way I see the tribunal is an opportunity to listen to both sides. The intent of the whole NAP should be very clear. Will it happen that someone unintentionally is doing something wrong. Surely.
Accidents will happen. But that is why there is a group of three to decide. Not every infringement deserves the nuclear option and I surely won't vote for it lightly. But it is important that the option exists.
To reiterate - this is why there is a tribunal. We can and will listen to both sides. If the story differs widely then we will have to find ways to verify one side or the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Re: Incidental point scoring - remember that you only score points when standing within the ring of fences around a tower. That is quite a small area, and will be difficult to do by accident (and is easily avoided).
That said, I agree that one or two points doesn't constitute an act of aggression or an attempt to take a tower.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gathered once around 150 points - fuming that someone I didn't knew had taken our core six tower - not noticing that I actually had teleported to another settlement ...
No - I didn't enter the tower by accident - but it took me a while to notice it wasn't one of our core six.
Off course if someone would have protected it, then that person could have told me of my mistake - or I would have asked him/her what they are doing in 'our' region ...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I gathered once around 150 points - fuming that someone I didn't knew had taken our core six tower - not noticing that I actually had teleported to another settlement ...
No - I didn't enter the tower by accident - but it took me a while to notice it wasn't one of our core six.
Off course if someone would have protected it, then that person could have told me of my mistake - or I would have asked him/her what they are doing in 'our' region ...
I did the same thing the second night, only I got up to over 600 points before I realized I'd teleported and shouldn't be there.