Goblin Squad Member
|
Never has a mod post pleased me more. Perfection in action!We have different definitions of perfection. I spent the better part of an hour composing a well thought out answer to the actual issues Summersnow raised, and all that work is taken away. I don't know what that's like for the rest of you, but for me, as a professional writer, it's highly reminiscent of being kicked in the stomach. Imagine yourself a technician who spends time setting up your parent's awful computer, only to have the guy from the cable company come along and throw the computer in the garabage while you're out.
I had that happening a few times (and some of those I was the culprit). If you cite a post that is deleted (even part of it) your post is deleted too.
It is a reasonable rule, of flamewars will last forever through citations.If you want to reply to a dubious post and want your reply to last, the best solution is not to cite ti but to start your post with "@(cited guy name)"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The limit hits at about 1 month. The NPC sites train to level 8. Local settlement supports based upon tower level.
Level 8 gets to some tier 2. Then is is just a matter of sitting on experience and not bing tempted until alliances are in place. Work on achievements and leap ahead whn alliances happen. This is EE!
Or Do not play until there are alliances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, unless you are attached to a large company with a settlement or are associated within an alliance, you will hit a cap that has nothing to do with game play choices, time spent playing and subscription cost paid.
You choose the wrong group to associate with, and you are capped. Very much like is found in EvE, alliance leaders will be able to demand whatever servitude they wish from their serfs under threat of expulsion. Unlike in EvE, your character will suffer a lose of access to the skills / tiers you have already paid for and trained.
Present that feature on any MMO / Gaming website and see what reaction you get.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that PC settlements should not be the higher source of training. Nor am I saying that membership should not bear with it some privileges.
The impression that I had was that the limitation of access to those facilities would be based on what reputation level was set for access; what alignment restrictions the settlement chose; and or an access denied by character name feature.
Settlement leaders could then open up training to as many or as few as they wished to, and outsiders may pay for training a a higher rate (in either xp or in addition to coin).
This would have a far more natural feel to it and be far less limiting than the current system as planned. The current planned system forces players into large alliances and makes them beholden to please those alliance leaders with whatever they ask for. This kills the game for the casual player or the small group of players who wish to be mercenary in their activities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The current planned system forces players into large alliances and makes them beholden to please those alliance leaders with whatever they ask for.
As far as I understand it the settlement advancement is dependent first on towers that can be captured by anyone. Leaders will be glad to accept anyone who won't be a thorn in their side. This is meaningful PvP to me.
If you posted this to a news site I'm sure it's not everyone's cup of tea. Until the game is in open enrollment though the only people who matter are those where it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Takasi, I have played EvE. Alliance leaders don't want anyone and won't be happy to accept anyone.
They know perfectly that they have a instrument to pressure people into the behavior they want and they want people that will be compliant to their wishes.
It all depend on what balances there are between the alliance leader ability to throw a company out of a settlement and the company ability to throw a character out it against the character ability to find a new company and the company ability to find a new settlement or to live without them.
Currently it seem that there will be the possibility to find a new company for a single character and for a company to find a new settlement but not a real possibility for a character without being part of a company and for a company to live without being part of a settlement.
That mean that as soon as a company is throw out of a settlement it will lose a large number of members as they will try to join another company to stay in the settlement where they have build their homes and have their gear.
The homeless company and its members will be weakened having lost the gear, the ability to make and use it and part of their numbers. Negotiating to be accepted by another settlement will be from a position of extreme need and the other part will know it. A very bad bargaining position.
I don't know, it can work splendidly, but generally people that become the the lord of a alliance has a good dose of ego and will love to use his power. I see some serious problem ahead until we find a balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The current planned system forces players into large alliances and makes them beholden to please those alliance leaders with whatever they ask for.
It took 3 of us half a day to take back 10+ towers when we lost them all due to the reset of the Emerald Lodge. So right now you don't have to be large - but you need to be active.
And yes - this included a post-Midnight session to capture our own towers back.
Off course this is pre-EE. At the moment too many players seem to wait and too many leaders seem not to care.
There is no war of towers. The towers are pretty static.
But as I said - right now size has nothing to do with count of towers. Callambea has a count of 2 ... This was one of the three early winners with loads of followers.
Sunholm on the other side at some stage had more members as towers (35 towers vs 33 members).
I know it doesn't mean they will be able to keep that many once EE starts. But even a small active alliance should be able to hold several and allow to train to level 10-12 as a very bare minimum.
And the war of towers is only a temp solution. We will have to wait for the true settlement building / organization.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Diego Rossi,
Completely agree. Ever try to get into Goonswarm? First pay $10.00 to join website, just to have the opportunity to put in an application. Then do whatever, for however long they say in one of their sub groups or sub groups, etc..
I can imagine a string enough alliance, requiring real $ dues, just to maintain access to that training. Even if that is nit the case, the system will guarantee that the strong will grow stronger, as smaller settlements will be forced to pat tribute to the large alliances.
That system works in EvE, because it can be avoided, and you can still play the game with all of your skills, ships, equipment and most importantly with your intentions. This is mostly due to EvE's vastness in size. A luxury that PFO will not have, fir some time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see it as the Settlement Leaders having the power in this case.
In EVE, can one low level noob force a corporation to spend dozens of hours monitoring an area in fear that the entire corporation will lose their high level progress? In PFO the door swings both ways.
If a settlement kicks out a player they are the ones risking an enemy. Patrolling towers is much easier if you don't have disgruntled applicants ready to pounce. Dealing with the chaos of rogues who do not adhere to non aggression pacts will result in incentives for joining settlements, not kowtowing and sacrificial demands.
Two or three Tier 1 characters can harass hundreds of higher level characters by forcing them to constantly monitor their towers every day for hours. The easiest solution is to just let them into the group.
I could understand if there was a downfall to allowing more people into the settlement. If there were only so many slots or if you had to feed them. The only issue I see is over harvesting but that's yet to be seen in play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, unless you are attached to a large company with a settlement or are associated within an alliance, you will hit a cap that has nothing to do with game play choices
Being in a less than successful settlement is pretty much the definition of game play choice.
You choose the wrong group to associate with, and you are capped. Very much like is found in EvE, alliance leaders will be able to demand whatever servitude they wish from their serfs under threat of expulsion.
Leaders that make life onerous for new members will very quickly not be large or desirable, since they will not be able to generate enough DI to maintain their buildings. Every Settlement needs to generate DI to maintain its facilities, and my impression is that no-one will be able to generate DI as fast as new characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... my impression is that no-one will be able to generate DI as fast as new characters.
You're confusing Development Index (DI) with Influence. New Characters will generate Influence quickly, but DI is not generated in the same way. DI is a static result of Settlement structures, and is allocated, not spent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(stuff about maintaining and taking towers)
Towers are a short term anomaly meant to carry us through the early parts of EE, and any discussion of them as bearing on the game in the long term will be of little or no value.
The mechanics of Points of Interest (POIs, or to be accurate, PsOI) will overlap towers quite a bit, but will really not have very much in common with the tower wars. A single character will not be able to take a POI from the company that maintains it, because (if I understand/recall correctly) it will have a complement of commoners (maybe equivalent to thornguards). It will require destruction of the POI to stop it creating bulk goods to have an effect on the settlement, so even if I'm wrong about the guards/employees, it will not be an easy task for an individual.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... my impression is that no-one will be able to generate DI as fast as new characters.You're confusing Development Index (DI) with Influence. New Characters will generate Influence quickly, but DI is not generated in the same way. DI is a static result of Settlement structures, and is allocated, not spent.
Sorry, You're right. Influence. All-the-same, that influence is needed if they want to feud or declare wars or a host of other potential areas essential to a settlement's ability to expand.
(edit: But not really "assigned" is it? I expected it to be the product of their activity. How much bulk goods they produce, taxes collected, etc.?)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Development Index is analogous to Players in a Settlement. You can allocate some Players to one task, and other Players to another task, but you're limited by your total number of Players, and you can change those allocations over time as your needs change, or as you gain or lose Players.
Influence is analogous to money. You can earn it, and you can spend it on a task. Once you've spent it, though, you have to earn more to be able to spend more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(stuff about maintaining and taking towers)Towers are a short term anomaly meant to carry us through the early parts of EE, and any discussion of them as bearing on the game in the long term will be of little or no value.
True but it's still relevant to this topic. The game is in a state of flux, and I'm referring to actual game mechanics in play today.
Were the feat limits explained exactly as implemented originally? If so then why the need for the PSA?
As the map expands into Open Enrollment how will the new land and new settlements compete? Will players who are not attached and who did not spend their experience actually have an edge? Who knows, but the idea that there's a central committee of settlement leaders that everyone will be forced to pay tribute to without any consideration of leverage sounds like ludicrous fear mongering to me. In the current state of the game unattached companies like the Allegiant Gemstone Company have more power to influence settlement recruitment than vice versa. There's no reason to magnify long term concerns based on current implementations because nothing is set in stone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that PC settlements should not be the higher source of training. Nor am I saying that membership should not bear with it some privileges.
The impression that I had was that the limitation of access to those facilities would be based on what reputation level was set for access; what alignment restrictions the settlement chose; and or an access denied by character name feature.
Settlement leaders could then open up training to as many or as few as they wished to, and outsiders may pay for training a a higher rate (in either xp or in addition to coin).
This would have a far more natural feel to it and be far less limiting than the current system as planned. The current planned system forces players into large alliances and makes them beholden to please those alliance leaders with whatever they ask for. This kills the game for the casual player or the small group of players who wish to be mercenary in their activities.
It's my understanding that the system you described is still the end goal. We're just going to have to put up with the more restrictive systems ("train only in your settlement" and "train only in your alliance") as intermediate steps between "train absolutely anywhere" and "train anywhere you aren't prohibited". The power trip periods for company and alliance leaders will be temporary. I think most of us agree that those power trips should be as short as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's my understanding that the system you described is still the end goal. We're just going to have to put up with the more restrictive systems ("train only in your settlement" and "train only in your alliance") as intermediate steps between "train absolutely anywhere" and "train anywhere you aren't prohibited". The power trip periods for company and alliance leaders will be temporary. I think most of us agree that those power trips should be as short as possible.
"Train only in your own settlement" is going to make crafting settlements nonviable.
Hopefully an option will be available at EE for settlements to change their choice so the current craft settlements can change over to something more practical - because as it currently stands absolutely no-one will join a crafting settlement with anything other than a DT craft alt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's my understanding that the system you described is still the end goal. We're just going to have to put up with the more restrictive systems ("train only in your settlement" and "train only in your alliance") as intermediate steps between "train absolutely anywhere" and "train anywhere you aren't prohibited". The power trip periods for company and alliance leaders will be temporary. I think most of us agree that those power trips should be as short as possible."Train only in your own settlement" is going to make crafting settlements nonviable.
Hopefully an option will be available at EE for settlements to change their choice so the current craft settlements can change over to something more practical - because as it currently stands absolutely no-one will join a crafting settlement with anything other than a DT craft alt.
If "train only in your settlement" happens after the War of Towers, then it won't be an issue.
After the WoT, we won't have predefined Crafting Settlements and Role A/Role B Settlements any more. After the Great Catastrophe (the end of the WoT), any settlement will be able to build whichever training facilities it wants, within the limits of lot size, building cost, and upkeep cost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If "train only in your settlement" happens after the War of Towers, then it won't matter as much. After the WoT, we won't have predefined Crafting Settlements and Role A/Role B Settlements any more. After the Great Catastrophe at the end of the WoT, any settlement will be able to build whichever training facilities it wants, within the limits of lot size and ability to pay for the building (and its upkeep).It's my understanding that the system you described is still the end goal. We're just going to have to put up with the more restrictive systems ("train only in your settlement" and "train only in your alliance") as intermediate steps between "train absolutely anywhere" and "train anywhere you aren't prohibited". The power trip periods for company and alliance leaders will be temporary. I think most of us agree that those power trips should be as short as possible."Train only in your own settlement" is going to make crafting settlements nonviable.
Hopefully an option will be available at EE for settlements to change their choice so the current craft settlements can change over to something more practical - because as it currently stands absolutely no-one will join a crafting settlement with anything other than a DT craft alt.
That may be true, but by that time the larger more popular settlements will be in an unassailable position. My concern is this situation is actually going to encourage the BoB/Goons style scenario where only the one or two big entities actually matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That may be true, but by that time the larger more popular settlements will be in an unassailable position. My concern is this situation is actually going to encourage the BoB/Goons style scenario where only the one or two big entities actually matter.If "train only in your settlement" happens after the War of Towers, then it won't matter as much. After the WoT, we won't have predefined Crafting Settlements and Role A/Role B Settlements any more. After the Great Catastrophe at the end of the WoT, any settlement will be able to build whichever training facilities it wants, within the limits of lot size and ability to pay for the building (and its upkeep).It's my understanding that the system you described is still the end goal. We're just going to have to put up with the more restrictive systems ("train only in your settlement" and "train only in your alliance") as intermediate steps between "train absolutely anywhere" and "train anywhere you aren't prohibited". The power trip periods for company and alliance leaders will be temporary. I think most of us agree that those power trips should be as short as possible."Train only in your own settlement" is going to make crafting settlements nonviable.
Hopefully an option will be available at EE for settlements to change their choice so the current craft settlements can change over to something more practical - because as it currently stands absolutely no-one will join a crafting settlement with anything other than a DT craft alt.
From what I've read, lots of people are concerned about that. I'm just saying that as long as they wait until after WoT to implement "train only in your settlement", there's no reason for people to avoid the settlements that are currently set up for crafting. If that's the case, then the "craft only in your settlement" phase won't prevent one of today's crafting settlements from becoming tomorrow's BoB or Goonswarm.
If GW gives us some assurance that they don't intend to turn on "train only at your settlement" during the War of Towers, then the crafting settlements don't need to worry about losing population, they're at no disadvantage when it comes to recruiting, and they don't need to switch to a different settlement type.
Note: If any GW staffers are reading this, then yes, that last paragraph represents blatant begging for one of you to give us that assurance. Nothing ironclad, just a statement like "We don't expect the tech to be ready by the Great Catastrophe, and we don't plan to screw up today's crafting settlements by forcing them to live without any martial training before we give them the option to diversify their training."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Combat will be available at NPC. and when alliance happens, accumulated XP can be traded. Before alliances are supported, alliance members can help with tower defense outside the tower. It is doable, if you trust your future alliance. THe two or three big alliances will be fine. The smaller ones were acknowledged to be at risk. Settlements under 60 members need a recruitment campaign and an alliance concept.
That includes my own. THe bottom 22 settlements are at risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We have a concept: "The settlement built around a tavern." A recruitment drive would be a good idea, but for that we need more of our existing members to start playing again, and for that we seem to need EE.
I agree that PFO seems to need EE, but that does not appear to be something that will begin for at least a few more weeks (or months).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We have a concept: "The settlement built around a tavern." A recruitment drive would be a good idea, but for that we need more of our existing members to start playing again, and for that we seem to need EE.I agree that PFO seems to need EE, but that does not appear to be something that will begin for at least a few more weeks (or months).
Actually, I just meant that Tavernhold seems to need EE in order for our inactive population to return, before we can pull off a credible recruitment drive.
PFO needs EE, too, though. You're right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that PFO seems to need EE, but that does not appear to be something that will begin for at least a few more weeks (or months).
Indeed.
Even if the Code Fairy were to wave her magic wand and give us a MVP tomorrow it is highly unlikely GW would decide to go to EE just before Xmas Eve or for that matter New Years Eve.