Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think independent companies will exist for very long if at all. Settlement membership seems mandatory.
That is not a good thing when only a handful of settlements out of the 33 are actually functional yet. You will end up with 3/4 of the game population in the one or two active settlements like Brighthaven.
Do not get me wrong Brighthaven have been doing great things in Alpha to help out new players and get crafting and trade moving and are very helpful, but its not good for the game longterm if 75% of the game ends up in TEO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Teleporting takes you to the middle of a hex so yeah it could be an issue.
I am more curious of how this NAP will effect independent free companies.
Independent free companies may have the most to gain, the most to lose or have no impact at all on them.
Based on what we can see now in Alpha, and most likely for the first few weeks of EE, Independent Free Companies have no real disadvantages. They will not need higher tier training for at least a few weeks, so the NPC settlements can provide them everything they need.
As of now, as I said, there is no limitation on who can train in PC settlements, with the exception of low reputation.
The Influence System is not in place, and has not been mentioned as being on GW's immediate or short term agenda.
Settlement Controls have not been implemented.
Skill training limitations have not been implemented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there's only one settlement, then there will only be two classes, since that's all one settlement can train.
If there's only one settlement, they will have to have large numbers of people spending lots of time away from the settlement because they won't be able to harvest all the necessary resources to maintain their buildings and training.
Once large numbers of people have to spend a lot of their time on the other side of the map gathering coal and gems that aren't available at home, they might just as well have a settlement there anyway.
And eventually, they'll get annoyed by having to go all the way across the map to train what they can't do in the distant spot, so they might as well have two settlements.
Then someone will get annoyed at someone else and say why don't we just go it on our own and ally with these other guys and set up a couple of settlements over here so that we don't have to listen to Lord Fauntleroy whine about how we aren't spending enough time gathering ordered essences instead of fighting the escalations.
And then the guys from that other guild will show up and....
Pathfinder is valuable because it offers the opportunity to be a true microcosm of human life. Anyone who thinks they know what's going to happen is fooling themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand that. My point, and forgive me if i'm failing to make it clearly, is that there will be no free companies for any real length of time. Because they can not advance to tier 2 and 3 training with out being part of a PC run settlement. Now if there is only one settlement worth being in, the game will fail. But everyone will have to be in a settlement somewhere. And every settlement is going to be affected by the NAP either by being protected by it or refusing it and risking being gobbled up by expansionist neighbors. No matter how it goes every one participating in EE is going to be affected by this document. I'm not saying that is good or bad but it is a fact.
The worry is you will end up with SOV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand that. My point, and forgive me if i'm failing to make it clearly, is that there will be no free companies for any real length of time. Because they can not advance to tier 2 and 3 training with out being part of a PC run settlement.
The only way they can't exist is if they don't make themselves valuable to any settlements that offer training. As long as they are willing to sell their swords once-in-a-while, and in between, sell raw materials that are hard to get locally, there will be a place for them, somewhere. If they just want to hide in the corner and play with themselves, yes, they'll have a tough time. Just like homeless people in any other land.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
dose your training still revert to tier 1 if your with out a settlement for 30 days?
It isn't quite a "revert" since you don't lose the feats, you just lose the ability to use them. That said, I'm not aware of any announcements reversing that. So it's possible I was wrong elsewhere, people may, indeed, be forced into a settlement of some kind, even if they are willing to be useful outsiders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
There is kind of a sword. A very big one. If you attack any ones core 6 towers every one and their mother will murder you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is kind of a sword. A very big one. If you attack any ones core 6 towers every one and their mother will murder you.
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.
yeah but NAP will mean most settlements will not bother even attempting defending their core 6 towers during the PvP window as they will not expect attacks.
This means it might be rather fun to form a river pirate free company that does nothing but run around with minimal gear and capture undefended towers during quiet times.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is kind of a sword. A very big one. If you attack any ones core 6 towers every one and their mother will murder you.
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.
I don't see anything in there stating that everyone must or should attack a settlement that breaks the NAP. It merely states that we would be unrestrained from doing so in this case....which is the default state of the game.
Breaking the NAP will only result in getting your towers taken because getting your towers taken is the natural result of not being included in a NAP. If the NAP did not exist, those towers would get taken regardless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.There is kind of a sword. A very big one. If you attack any ones core 6 towers every one and their mother will murder you.
False. If you attack anyone's core six you are no longer protected by its terms. There is no punitive clause other than being excluded from the protections. Other groups may then attack your core six without risking their own status. Leaving you in exactly the position that you'd be in if you were never protected by the agreement.
Other groups might decide to go after you, but that is exactly true if there were no NAP.
There is no stick in the agreement. There is protection and the removal of protection. By the terms of the agreement the worst punishment is that you are in exactly the state you'd have been in if the agreement didn't exist.
This is a gentlepersons' agreement to allow each other a chance to exist at the minimum level to make it through the war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is kind of a sword. A very big one. If you attack any ones core 6 towers every one and their mother will murder you.
So your objection is "If I attack somebody's home, they and their allies may retaliate"? Do you really think the NAP is material to that argument at all?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This means it might be rather fun to form a river pirate free company that does nothing but run around with minimal gear and capture undefended towers during quiet times.
You'll not be able to pledge those towers to anyone, though--or, at least, all NAP Settlements other than the "proper" owner will decline the offer--removing a bit of the purpose, but probably none of the fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have looked through every single comment twice, and most people like the document as is, and the small amount of editing we have had to do for typos has been fixed. Most of the people that have any issues seem to be with specific items that have been generally excepted, furthermore I have gotten mails from several settlements ready to begin the signing process.
Today, at 6PM Eastern (or very close to then), I will post a statement, as well as the document, here on Paizo for all interested parties to sign.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This means it might be rather fun to form a river pirate free company that does nothing but run around with minimal gear and capture undefended towers during quiet times.You'll not be able to pledge those towers to anyone, though--or, at least, all NAP Settlements other than the "proper" owner will decline the offer--removing a bit of the purpose, but probably none of the fun.
Not to mention that if they are not pledged to anyone they have a 24/7 PVP window I believe, so they should be easy to take back.
Okay, y'know what? I can see where he's coming from on this.
I know, I know, "big shock". Despite my "chicken" remarks, though, I honestly have little-to-no problem with the NAP. But let's draw this out.
The NAP is a bit of a sword. It does hurt certain settlements by giving them a drawback they wouldn't be dealing with otherwise. I will back this up by simply comparing the game with and without the Non-Agression Pact.
Situation Without NAP:
All settlements are open season. As such, all tower attacks end up being split between Angrytown, Happytown, Mehtown and Othertown. We're assuming an even split there, but even if there isn't, attacks are going to be somewhat divided (with some focus on the people who refuse to keep active).
Situation With NAP:
Only one settlement, Angrytown, is open season. Everybody else follows the Pact and is still free to attack Angrytown. As such, Angrytown becomes the "acceptable target" punching bag (the "everyone and their mother" scenario), without the shield of "maybe they'll go for the Mehtowners instead". In essence, the "some focus" mentioned previously has had its polarity reversed.
This NAP is not just "accept the protection if you like, decline if you don't". That's oversimplifying. The fact is, the NAP acts as a magnifying glass on anybody who doesn't want to follow the rules.
Again, I'm not for or against this NAP. I don't really care that much, since I'm sure I'll still be able to fight people over non-adjacent or poorly-maintained towers. I'm just pointing out that maybe there is kind of enough of a stick in there that we shouldn't be going after Gol with bold letters that mean super much fact.
I think this arrangement is less of a Non-aggression pact, as it is actually a Mutual-Defense pact. A key stipulation is that people should band together to take towers back from an aggressor that violates the core tower zone. I can't recall in history a non-aggression pact with more than two parties.
Is that in the document? It's a lot of words.
I'm not assuming it's a mutual defense pact for the purposes of my post, though, so anybody responding to me and Doc should take care not to get our points confused.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Angrytown isn't fair game, though, until they attack a NAP signatory. And even then, they probably only have to worry about the signer's actual allies. The NAP is not a mutual defense treaty, and is certainly not a military alliance.
The letter of the NAP may cause Angrytown to become non-protected as soon as they attack Othertown (presumably a non-signer), but I personally will not feel a great sense of moral outrage and head over to get involved in a dispute between those entities.
The NAP is simply a statement by a number of players. "This is a code of conduct we plan to abide by". Angrytown can jump up and down screaming "You guys should be attacking each other!", but that doesn't oblige us to do so.
Angrytown isn't fair game, though, until they attack a NAP signatory.
Angrytown attacks a signatory. That is the assumption. Sorry, I should have emphasized that.
And even then, they probably only have to worry about the signer's actual allies. The NAP is not a mutual defense treaty, and is certainly not a military alliance.
Again, careful not to get mine and Doc's points confused. I am not saying the others are required to attack Angrytown. I am saying that anybody who wants to attack someone will have Angrytown as the sole target. It's nothing to do with "outrage", just a smaller range of options. Magnifying glass.
Obviously, not everyone will be interested in fighting over towers in this tiny little four-settlement world. Perhaps only Angrytown, Mehtown and Othertown. But Mehtown and Othertown will have every single one of their attacks directed at Angrytown, rather than perhaps splitting their tower grabs towards more vulnerable targets like Happytown.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To put things dead simple:
By stating, "We won't attack you unless you attack someone first,"
you are also stating, "We will direct any attacks we make at people who attack someone first ."
This is shifting the focus, and it is a stick.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All of these points seem to be exagerated. No one is under any more threat than they were without/before this agreement. You were all on the menu and, infact, still are.
Look at the layout of the map. There are plenty of towers to contest beyond the core 6 of each settlement. What bothers people, IMO, is that it means signatories will be focusing on those "other" towers and possibly those of people that aggress anyone's core 6. There are no clandestine plans to cooperate and punish those that don't sign or those that violate after signing. They are simply back on the "high cholesterol menu". Just as they were without this.
Assuming that this puts you under more threat (than you were before this) does not make sense to me. Non signatories are actually safer now than before all of this. The choice to revert back to the "less than safer state" is thiers.
Thanks, Caldeathe. I don't know that it needs changing, I just felt that dismissing Phyllain's entirely accurate point wasn't exactly conducive to a healthy discussion.
All of these points seem absolutely ridiculous. No one is under any more threat than they were without/before this agreement. You were all on the menu and, infact, still are.
Except now there aren't about thirty other settlements on that menu. Just you and the unclaimed towers. So, yeah, those who opt out are very much in more danger than before.
It's like removing every side of a die but the "2" and saying, "Look, we didn't change your side at all, nor did we put you on more than one. I don't know what you're complaining about."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The NAP might open people up more danger of such counter-attacks than they would face in its absence, and people are within their rights to not like it for that reason. I don't feel like there's any need to change it to accommodate their feelings.
I dom't see it that way, considering the distance between settlements and the difficulty in projecting power and "holding" your winnings at distance.
Annnnd.... of course if you attack me, I am likely to take back and then retaliate. If I have the manpower and ability.
Hey, I'm not arguing that. I'm only pointing out that there is, most definitely, a net negative effect on those who wish to deliberately opt out of the NAP. How great that effect is is a question for more game-savvy minds than my own. I'm just doing the math, guys. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The "net negative" really isn't much different than the standard condition before the agreement. Some just choose to see it that way. It is little different than messing with an alliance and, I will bet you, will amount to little more (for Out-Opters) than messing with a local alliance would have before the agreement.
It's funny, because I've heard in other threads opinions hoping for the reverse—that those who attempt to sabotage or betray the peace will be swiftly dealt with. I'm intrigued to see which voices will win out, and if those wishing to play "old-school" will be able to eke out a living during the War of Towers.
By the way, I'm a bit disappointed at how determined you are to dismiss alternate viewpoints as signs of "boredom", "ridiculous poppycock", or people "choosing to see that way". It seems a needlessly hostile "debate" style (if I can even call it that much) for such a trivial issue as a non-aggression pact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's funny, because I've heard in other threads opinions hoping for the reverse—that those who attempt to sabotage or betray the peace will be swiftly dealt with. I'm intrigued to see which voices will win out, and if those wishing to play "old-school" will be able to eke out a living during the War of Towers.
By the way, I'm a bit disappointed at how determined you are to dismiss alternate viewpoints as signs of "boredom", "ridiculous poppycock", or people "choosing to see that way". It seems a needlessly hostile "debate" style (if I can even call it that much) for such a trivial issue as a non-aggression pact.
You are right. Like all people, I have my grumpy days. I will edit those portions.
Thanks, KC.
Edit: I do not agree that all of that was over any line, but I do agree some was, and that has been changed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, 'sall good. Most of you have seen my grumpy days, so I've little room to complain about a bit of grump from others.
EDIT: Yeah, sometimes I can be a bit oversensitive (as some of you have probably noticed by now). I just like all my arguments to be as mellow as possible. Maybe we should all just go get some "Polished Grass" before continuing this discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that this NAP will produce a lot of side effects.
For instance, we will see who opts in, opts out, and doesn't participate in the discussion at all. We will see who rules lawyers the agreement, who attempts to skirt it, and who practices the very spirit of the agreement. Finally, we will see some groups true colors when corner cases arise.
This NAP, while attempting to set a minimum par at which all settlements can play at and grow, will also set the political stage for after the Great Catastrophe.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You have a valid point; I just don't see how it could be considered a very important one, and it superficially resembles a point that would be important but requires a deliberate misunderstanding to believe.
Once I saw the point you were making wasn't the one I thought it was, everything clears up.