Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought I report back on some of my impressions as a settlement leader about the GUI and other aspects of tower warefare, members joining, etc.
Improvements:
There is a '*' next to companies which are founding companies in the GUI
Applying (hitting the apply button) now works and the GUI pops up for the settlement leader notifying him someone wants his attention
Holdings are now listed for all companies which are aligned with a settlement
All Holdings of a whole settlement are shown for the founding company - this includes all pledged ones and even some taken since the last server reset
Settlement leaders can now set the PvP window
Kick members and accepting them works for company leaders
Minor issues:
The GUI has a scroll bar to scroll the leaderwindow but not the member window. There is only a single leader but often more as 6 additional members. This means you are only able to read the top 6 and as leader can't kick one below that.
The 'leave' button is gone. That is good as it means you can't leave by accident. But I'm not sure that the command /vcleave Companyname is documented anywhere - so some players might not know how to leave at all
Holdings: I had a few times issues with the top towers now displaying - unable to scroll up. These are the top 1 1/2 lines / towers. Not always reproducible.
Phaeros has no company with founder status - guess this was an original set-up issue and I understand if they keep it at the moment to avoid issues
It is possible to have the window overlap with the downtime. Brighthaven is an example. It starts before the downtime and lasts until after it.
There seems a memory issue with lists of holdings. Looking at a lot of them eventually results in empty lists. You can fix this by hitting the refresh button
Usage:
23 settlements have at least 1 company pledged which took 1 or more towers.
The majority of settlements still has 0:00 (Midnight UTC) as start time - so never changed the window
There seems hardly any change in ownership of towers. Emerald Lodge might be the sole exemption. We started with 18 towers. Some got taken by another settlement. Then we nuked the settlement and started retaking towers. But as far as I can tell that would account for 90% of all towers which changed hands.
Major issues:
Having been reduced to 0 towers I noticed that ALL my skills got reduced to level 5. Miner 5, Smelter 5, etc. This is in accordance with the way towers should work for training as Emerald Lodge (until the recaptured towers count) should only give training up to level 5. But in the current implementation this is not what happens.
Characters pledged to Emerald Lodge are capped to level 5 on ALL skills. This means the limitation to max level is currently on the character and not the settlement. It might have been the easiest to implement - but it has a few consequences.
1) someone NOT aligned to Emerald Lodge can currently train levels > 5 in Emerald Lodge
2) someone aligned to Emerald Lodge can not train levels >5 at Emerald Lodge. This even applies in a different settlement
3) all skills are limited to level 5. This means HP are reduced, crafting time is longer (as the skill is reduced), etc.
4) but there are exemptions - Thod - level 7 smelter has his skill reduced to level and can't train smelter 8 anywhere but is still able to craft Dwarven Steel Ingots. He is also reduced to level 5 forrester / scavenger / miner but was able to harvest tier 2 items
Possible short term solution:
Lee mentioned that there is a spreadsheet that controls all of this. Don't penalize someone belonging to a settlement with a small amount of towers more than someone not belonging to any settlement. As long as the max skills are aligned with the settlement and happen as soon as the settlement loses towers increase the max level to 8 for settlements with 0 to 6 towers.
Long term once you assign trainers and it is settlement controlled then turn it back. But right now you cripple any character belonging to a settlement with <6 towers. This will discourage the smaller settlements even to try.
Hopefully the NDA between settlements will take care of the worst issues here. But losing all skills back to level 5 came as a shock that I don't want to have inflicted on other players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And some people might find the following infomation useful. This was a snapshot taken 24 hours after 12.1 was distributed. Numbers of towers have been changing - but as I said - not much. And I haven't updated number of members.
The one big surprise for me was Callambea whcih was down with just 2 towers taken. For one of the early 3 this seems odd.
Please make a new thread if you want to discuss the fate of inactive settlements. I don't think all with 0 are actually inactive - but the inactives will be part of the ones with lots of 0's in the table below.
Settlement Members Companies Towers
Alderwag 7 3 3
Aragon 18 1 16
Auroral 0 0 0
Blackfeather Keep 7 1 9
Blackwatch 0 0 0
Blackwood Glade 11 2 12
Brighthaven 69 7 22
Callambea 2 2 2
Canis Castrum 0 0 0
Dagedai 3 1 8
Deadman's Glen 0 0 0
Doomhammer 0 0 0
Emerald Lodge 14 2 18
Forgeholm 9 1 8
Freevale 2 1 10
Golgotha 38 3 15
Guardheim 0 0 0
Hammerfall 5 2 5
Hammerforge 0 0 0
Highroad 0 0 0
Hope's End 3 2 6
Iron Gauntlet 0 0 0
Keeper's Pass 13 2 9
Kreuz Bernstein 6 1 5
Ozem's Vigil 7 1 16
Phaeros 30 7 26
River Bank 2 1 0
Stoneroot Glade 11 3 23
Sunholm 12 3 35
Talonguard 7 3 17
Tavernhold 10 4 7
Terra Firma 0 0 0
New Daggermark 0 0 0
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to say that I'm not a fan of loosing towers downgrading trained skills. Blocking training sure, but rolling back things I've already trained? Not cool with that.
I totally agree with that, it gives me as a still unaffiliated a strange advantage, so I expect it is a bug or at least a unwanted sideeffect...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It doesn't actually remove the training, it only puts in in abeyance until you join a Settlement with the ability to support your training level, or convince your leadership to take enough towers to support you. It's actually working exactly as intended; you're being offered a meaningful choice to stay with a Settlement that doesn't control enough towers to support your highest abilities, or to move, or to find a way to get more towers.
After the War of Towers ends, Settlements will have to decide which buildings to put up--using limited resources and slots--to support which Feats and Skills, and to what levels. No one Settlement will ever be able to do all things at once.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
After the War of Towers ends, Settlements will have to decide which buildings to put up--using limited resources and slots--to support which Feats and Skills, and to what levels. No one Settlement will ever be able to do all things at once.
And one of the things limiting how many buildings the settlement can put up is the settlement's Development Index (DI). How does the settlement get DI? One of the ways is to have companies hold hexes with Points of Interest (POI). If a settlement doesn't have enough companies and moxie to take towers, it's probably really going to be hurting when it comes time to take and hold hexes with POIs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It doesn't actually remove the training, it only puts in in abeyance until you join a Settlement with the ability to support your training level, or convince your leadership to take enough towers to support you. It's actually working exactly as intended; you're being offered a meaningful choice to stay with a Settlement that doesn't control enough towers to support your highest abilities, or to move, or to find a way to get more towers.
After the War of Towers ends, Settlements will have to decide which buildings to put up--using limited resources and slots--to support which Feats and Skills, and to what levels. No one Settlement will ever be able to do all things at once.
Ugh... I was under the impression just the settlement itself was effected and members could go and train at other locations if need be. Thus putting other settlements in control who they let in to train. If all members are effected and we have to actively leave the group to get training, that puts things in a whole different perspective.
Entire guilds could get wiped out (not just the physical settlement location) this way. I can see this kind of activity losing a lot of players (myself included) who enjoy the option of PvP while not being forced into it to survive. I feel like this war of towers is starting to look like not an option for PvP but rather a tool to force it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I want to eventually train tier 2, the guild (company, settlement, etc) I am associated with has to be in control of the number of towers required for that level of training. I cannot, for example train in another settlement and get tier 2 training without either dissocitiating myself from my current settlement or taking the required number of towers.
Which means the group I am associated with (not just the physical settlement) will either have to take towers or dissolve in order for its members to train tier 2. Physically training at another settlement location is not enough (which is what I initially thought would be possible). Also by this example, others in other groups will be able to train tier 2 at my physical settlement even if that settlement does not control enough towers as long as that other person is part of a group with enough towers.
To me, that is backwards physical settlements should be effected not the actual characters themselves. If this is the case, I could see people getting to a cap point and quitting the game (i.e. No longer wanting to pay for xp they can't spend). This model forces PvP rather than providing it as an option. Which is fine if GW wants PFO to go that way, it's just not my cup of tea. I would still play until my kickstarter time is used then stop paying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Huran, I think it depends on how it's implemented after WoT. If say, support buildings are cheaper and less complicated than training buildings, then smaller or lesser settlements could exist with little training capability. They wouldn't be the key centers people flock to for training, but they might be business centers or just solid everyday resource/farming towns.
They might end up being subjects of more agressive settlements. Such is the way of the world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know that I understand completely but it sounds like if your settlement looses towers the skills in your book as a player from that settlement, have the numbers go down to what the settlement can "support". Not ok to me. Useability should be tied to location. Yes as a member of a given settlement when I'm there I should only have access to building/training what that settlement can support, but if I travel to another settlement with better facilities that I can access I shouldn't be barred from using them to the fullest if the settlement allows it. Otherwise I'm SOL on my entire plan for my main character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's a game, not a simulation. Support is the mechanism by which settlement benefit residents.
Every game mechanic simulates something. If not, there'd be no need for encumbrance, or training, or movement or combat. We'd all be omnipotent beings of pure light shooting lasers out of our butts in a multiverse of dinosaurs and cotton candy.
Anybody else want to take a stab at actually answering my question? What does support represent?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understood support to be the level of the workshops in the settlement.
The forge isn't great and can't get hot enough to allow you to work rarer metals.
The sawyer doesn't have a blade strong enough to cut those logs.
The fighter college doesn't know how to train that skill.
That sort of thing. Thus going to a better facility should still allow the player to train/use their skills there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understood support to be the level of the workshops in the settlement.
The forge isn't great and can't get hot enough to allow you to work rarer metals.
The sawyer doesn't have a blade strong enough to cut those logs.
The fighter college doesn't know how to train that skill.
That sort of thing. Thus going to a better facility should still allow the player to train/use their skills there.
Thank you. That's what I wanted to know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's a game, not a simulation. Support is the mechanism by which settlement benefit residents.Every game mechanic simulates something. If not, there'd be no need for encumbrance, or training, or movement or combat. We'd all be omnipotent beings of pure light shooting lasers out of our butts in a multiverse of dinosaurs and cotton candy.
Anybody else want to take a stab at actually answering my question? What does support represent?
Think of support as the ability to maintain and stay up to date with the skills that you have trained. Learning a thing is difficult, but maintaining that knowledge or physical conditioning through practice requires much less time and resources (and thus can be provided by a weaker settlement, if you get training elsewhere).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
^^ what Kadere said.
Maintaining skills at peak condition will depends on having a support structure. Think of Olympic athletes, professional ball players, elite military members. There's coaches, medical types, and a huge amount of infrastructure behind each of those. They train all of the time to stay at the top of their field. Yes, they take breaks. But not long breaks before they are training again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Support: A yet to be determined upkeep style mechanic, to prevent people from jumping companies to temporarily use their benefits, and curb the maximum effectiveness of low rep players(low rep = lower maximum level of settlement facilities = lower level support facilities).
Basically, a place you need to visit every so often to enable your feats.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Basically, a place you need to visit every so often to enable your feats.
I very much hope there's something that requires Characters to actually visit the Settlement providing Support. Last time it was discussed, it became clear that a Settlement wouldn't suffer from having Low Reputation members, those members just wouldn't be able to enter the Settlement if the Reputation Requirement was higher than their Reputation. The idea that a very Low Reputation Character could be fully supported indefinitely by a High Reputation Settlement seems wrong to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel like this war of towers is starting to look like not an option for PvP but rather a tool to force it.
Based on the mechanics alone it does indeed appear to be a 365 days a year battle royal (for 6 months or longer), where if you want to advance your character your only choice would eventually be to be part of one of the most powerful PvP powerhouses. In theory this should indeed lead to the elimination of all but few of the most powerful settlements. Whether (and why) this is Goblinworks' goal (or just potential unfortunate collateral damage from the PvP stop gap solution) I have no idea.
But that is only the mechanics. This is supposed to be a sandbox. Eventually it is the players (and by players I mean the major powers) who are going to decide how the War of Towers is going to play out.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are looking at scaling up the base level a PC settlement has to be the same as an NPC settlement, but scaling down the bonus each tower gives. The p[lan right now is to change it to starting at level 7 (which is what NPC settlements do) and adding a third of a level for each tower. So you'll be level 9 if you take the six towers around your settlement, etc.
Correct me if I am wrong (and I did not read the whole thread) but suddenly loosing the use of your training because your settlement lost a tower or three is not intended. The intended effect is supposed to be a bugger between loss of towers and loss of ability- enough so that your settlement has time to reclaim the towers before feeling the impact.
Yes or no?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It was stated as a 30 day cool-down before your skills are lost.
The mechanic is intended to stop someone from joining a settlement long enough to get all the training they need, then dropping out. It is another component of the anti-griefing behaviour and I can't see them changing it much* unless they have an alternative.
* If anything, I think it's more likely they'd reduce the thirty days to less.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can train anything that someone will let you train. The real issue is whether your settlement provides "support". You need a temple to train clerics, but (I think) you only need a seminary to support that cleric. Your company can also operate a POI of sometime that may support your role.
The war of towers is a six month anomaly, and we shouldn't be so focused on it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Face Palm*
Ok I forgot war of towers was only 6 months.
My main concern was characters getting left in the dust in the event where they are part of a settlement having little to no towers. Since getting up to tier 2 is in itself a timely event and with Lee's news shared on this thread, I am far less concerned about the impact on such characters.
Thank you all for the clarification ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They've also told us that support-buildings will be notably cheaper than training-buildings, the latter providing support alongside training. Among friends, a larger Settlement could thus provide a wide variety of training--a la Phaeros--while smaller friends would need to invest only in appropriate support buildings, leaving some of their resources available for other purposes, such as a marketplace, that the larger Settlement decided to forego.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It was stated as a 30 day cool-down before your skills are lost.
The mechanic is intended to stop someone from joining a settlement long enough to get all the training they need, then dropping out. It is another component of the anti-griefing behaviour and I can't see them changing it much* unless they have an alternative.
* If anything, I think it's more likely they'd reduce the thirty days to less.
At the moment there is no cool-down. I think this is why it is so important that you don't drop back all the way to level 5 if you are suddenly without a settlement and towers.
The following is from Lee in reply to my settlement issues. I hope he doesn't mind me sharing:
Things should be working such that tower loss takes effect on server restart. Long term we want to build in a longer time before players lose their training, but we haven;t had time thus far. We're still working in the numbers in terms of base settlement level and bonus per tower. Luckily that's all in a spreadsheet and farily easy to tweak.
So timing at the moment is:
You gain (lose) towers and it effects you after the next restart.You join / leave a settlement and the effect is immidiate. I tried this with one character. She was on level 5 because of 0 towers, left the company and got all trained level 6+ back, joined again and was back and capped to level 5.
As Cal mentioned - the war of towers is an anomaly and I guess we can live with how it is right now during the War or Towers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My 2c: on the downside this will mean people flocking to settlements already strong, reinforcing them .. until only a few survive. Those who will not find a place within the strong and mighty are very likely to move to other games. You have to give small upstarts both incentive AND a fighting chance, otherwise why should they even try to compete?
1) It takes only ten people to go off and form a new settlement somewhere.
2) The map is big, and will be a lot bigger.3) Groups will be hard-pressed to wage war at great distance.
4) Political entities that don't serve the needs of their citizens inevitably collapse.
5) Goblins wield a mighty hammer when it comes to shaking things up that threaten their revenue stream or ideals.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
My 2c: on the downside this will mean people flocking to settlements already strong, reinforcing them .. until only a few survive. Those who will not find a place within the strong and mighty are very likely to move to other games. You have to give small upstarts both incentive AND a fighting chance, otherwise why should they even try to compete?
New players will gain no additional training for at least several months, because it will take that long to train to the point that all settlements support and NPC settlements train. At that point they need only the lowest bit of additional support.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Level 20 skills will be a very long time away. By the time they are available, many Settlements will have risen and fallen.
Most Tier 2 skills will probably be easy for even the smallest Settlements to maintain. Tier 3 might be only for those truly successful.
I agree with the above.
Since XP cost for each ranks is non-linear and closer to exponential.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2) The map is big, and will be a lot bigger. 3) Groups will be hard-pressed to wage war at great distance.That would indicate that you "only" have to go to "your corner of the map" and form a settlement and no one will be there to challenge you .....
... which I do not think is the caseYou have a difficult problem here
a) most players want to go the "easiest route"
Most players will find a home in an existing settlement. We were talking about people who can't find such a place. They will have an opportunity to make one.