Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like to keep am eye on the political landscape - just to avoid suprises. And being a data junky I have my various spreadsheets. But I thought some people like to know this data as well.
After week 1 there are still 12 settlements without towers and 6 without members. It could be 7 as I counted a company called Alderwag ... as officially Alderwag - it could be 4 as I read online that signs of activity have been seen in Riverbank and Terra Firma and it sometimes takes extra time to be official (like Aragon struggling for a few days).
There are a little bit over 200 more members in all the settlements. I guess there will be a hike once the window to accept growth to 24 (48?) hours. I surely missed a few members.
On top of membership are Brighthaven and Golgotha - followed by Phaeros. These are also the ones making the biggest noises here on the board or doing PvP.
Followed is the next block of 4 - the quite ones. Stoneroot Glade, Ozems Vigil, Keppers Pass (albeit they sometimes get dragged into hostilities due to their allies) and Callambea.
I try to steer Emerald Lodge a little bit out of the headlines - Aragon might enter them - and some further below like Forgeholm (can't ignore you every time) might be content to build up at their own pace.
Tier 2 gathering is now available - tier 2 refining should be immidiate. Haven't checked if a min-maxed char can do it already or not. Crafting will take a moment longer as you seldom can work with rank 7 refined items - but maybe I need to check what is available.
All in all - the game is developing. It is not a big explosion of players - but also no doom and gloom scenario.
Brighthaven 114 17
Golgotha 106 19
Phaeros 78 18
Stoneroot Glade 56 14
Ozem's Vigil 50 12
Keeper's Pass 43 14
Callambea 42 12
Emerald Lodge 33 13
Aragon 32 18
Tavernhold 23 12
Forgeholm 23 10
Canis Castrum 19 15
Talonguard 18 12
Sunholm 16 14
Auroral 14 8
Freevale 10 11
Hammerfall 10 6
Hope's End 9 11
Blackfeather Keep 9 8
Guardheim 6 10
Blackwood Glade 6 6
Kreuz Bernstein 2 0
Alderwag 2 0
Blackwatch 2 0
Deadman's Glen 2 0
Dagedai 1 0
Hammerforge 1 0
Doomhammer
Highroad
Iron Gauntlet
River Bank
Terra Firma
New Daggermark
edit: Tower numbers are to be taken with a grain of salt. They change a lot between Golgotha, Brighthaven and Phaeros.
We need a new motto - not 'You keep what you hold' but 'This is mine - until the next PvP window'. It is just not possible - memberwise and game wise - to truly defend all towers during your whole PvP window. How many are actually fought over and how many are just sneak camped I don't know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On your Edit there:
I would go out on a limb and say we would need triple our active numbers in game, as a server, to play the current iteration of war of towers. We really need defenders counting for something, Rez Shrines removed from War of Towers Hexes, and low level stunning NPCs to guard the towers (against naked mobs), and finally a better system to recognize which tower was lost and which tower is currently under attack.
There are 684 people in settlements, I know for a fact there are quite a few still not in settlements playing this game (TEO has 2-3 people as of last night that never got added back or are just showing up). Even though that is true, I would say at least 40% of 684 are alts, some people have a lot of them, some don't, and some don't even have one. I currently believe we have around 500-600 people playing the game, and I feel that when Feb hits, including attrition, I think we can make it to 1,000 active members playing in settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Cheatle
It wasn't meant as criticism - it might have just been my frustration that I can't even tell how it is going between the two blocks from the data I gather.
A tower changing hands might be a big battle - it might be nothing at all which is reversed next day. So it more points to several flaws. I expect you and Golgotha know them much better as I do.
The problem with WoT is that the manhours just to defensively scout a settlement's own towers over a long PvP window are immense considering how small the player population is. Especially when you consider that scouting towers isn't as rewarding as other activities.
Even when a settlement's defensive scouts detect an incursion, if their opponents don't want to fight they just flee and look elsewhere for an unprotected tower.
Some settlements have (at least at times) not even bothered to defensively scout their towers during their PvP window and even when their folks passed through and could see my counter going up on THEIR tower, my incursions don't get reported, or don't get a response.
I'm not saying that to insult those settlements, they seem to be doing fine with plenty of towers under whatever strategy they are using.
I'm just giving some insight into how the WoT is shaping up in case our crowdforgers think they can think up something better.
I saw the comment about activity in Terra Firma also, but I think that poster might have misinterpreted the activity there. Checking in daily on the TF website and multiple times per day in settlement hasn't dusted up any official activity yet.
I believe Talonguard re-captured some TF towers taken by an independent company. Also, I think another independent company recently took a TF tower or two (I think they have also now been accepted to a settlement, after the tower take).
If that last bit turns into some NAPpy drama thread, please just burn this message instead. Just trying to help update the scene.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having been legitimately attacked when passing through a hex in its PvP window, I was impressed with Golgotha's patroling. I'd agree that the manpower to hold and patrol a good number of towers is daunting. Some of the front-runners, including my own settlement, are likely holding more towers than they need to, but all competitors are in the same boat. Taking towers is easier (and likely more fun) than holding towers.
If WoT is a placeholder, the towers do allow for no-rep-loss PvP. They aren't scarce enough to force us into conflict, yet, and I'm not sure that's the purpose of the WoT.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
low level stunning NPCs to guard the towers (against naked mobs)
I'm assuming you mean mobs of naked players...
One could argue that defenders should be bringing their OWN stuns. Though I realize it is *currently* very hard to target a running attacker, and that is probably why you'd prefer NPCs to do it, but we really just need player targeting to be improved.
*IF* we allow NPCs with stun (until player targeting is improved), they ought to only show up when defenders show up, maybe one NPC for every 4 defenders capping at 3 NPCs.
I really don't want to see NPCs doing what ought to be player work, and if defenders don't show up in force, neither should the NPCs.
Killing the NPCs should NOT count against rep (nor towards social skills), and the NPC respawn shouldn't be instantaneous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, Midnight, I meant that to kill naked people that AFK take towers, so that when you attempt to take one, until we show up you have to contend with low level mobs. This would force some to at least use weapons/armor or more resources depending on how its setup. My intent is that naked mobbing not be a viable tactic.
Edit: AUTOCORRECT WHHHYYYY!!???
Attackers afk-ing at a tower are EASILY solved by defensive scouting. Your people have to ignore me for ~83 minutes if I'm afk "attacking" your tower.
[stealth edit: or my group has to invest `83 man-minutes per tower. I'm wanting defenders to spend some equivalent of that time *defending* each tower].
When you have more than enough towers, its understandable to not waste people on all of them, but under such circumstances, all of them aren't important.
I'm inclined to disagree about having NPCs do what ought to be player work (even though I have acknowledged earlier that defensive scouting is burdensome with a low player population).
Defensive scouting is just like flossing your teeth. Ask your dentist if you really have to floss ALL your teeth. Their reply will be the same as my reply if you ask if you have to defensively scout all your towers...
No, just the ones you want to keep.
Luckily, lost towers are easier to get back than lost teeth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I can walk up to a tower and take it while napping, I should be able to have that tower. I agree with Midnight that it is the owner's responsibility to defend their towers without NPC muscle. I imagine AFK capping will self correct as the population grows (and as settlements actually need the towers).
One NPC tower (or certain POI) solution that I would love to (eventually) see would be a "Signaler". A NPC inside the tower that would light the tower's signal flame when it was under attack. This could prompt a message to be delivered to settlement leadership, or company leadership, whatever. Maybe you limit this to 2 hexes distance from the settlement, or leap down a line of towers with a delay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
low level stunning NPCs to guard the towers (against naked mobs)*IF* we allow NPCs with stun (until player targeting is improved), they ought to only show up when defenders show up, maybe one NPC for every 4 defenders capping at 3 NPCs.
I think there's merit in this, and it doesn't have to be Thornguards or if it is, they shouldn't be nearly as capable or potent, nor should they return quickly.
Here's my preference:
I proposed elsewhere, (in a chat with Guildenstern, I think), that it would be nice if each tower attracted a low level mob. Perhaps a lone bandit, wolf, or goblin (or maybe even two or three) once every 20-30 minutes, just to avoid naked AFK tower captures and to give patrols something to do while they wait.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It takes ~3 minutes to run across a hex. If the towers a settlement holds are contiguous, each patroller can quickly cover 3+ hexes. I don't see a need for an NPC to get involved.
Now, if we want NPCs to have the capability of camping an unwatched tower and returning it to an unheld state...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having been legitimately attacked when passing through a hex in its PvP window, I was impressed with Golgotha's patroling. I'd agree that the manpower to hold and patrol a good number of towers is daunting. Some of the front-runners, including my own settlement, are likely holding more towers than they need to, but all competitors are in the same boat. Taking towers is easier (and likely more fun) than holding towers.
If WoT is a placeholder, the towers do allow for no-rep-loss PvP. They aren't scarce enough to force us into conflict, yet, and I'm not sure that's the purpose of the WoT.
You can tell whether a settlement LIKES combat by whether they patrol. I've finally got sanctioned PvP, so I spend as much time as I can in hexes with open PvP windows, even if I'm just gathering.
This week, my travels have taken me far across the map in various directions and I'm amazed at how many PvP windows are open without my encountering anyone eager to do combat.
I'm not sure, however, if that would change if I waltzed into their tower and started a countdown. ;-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One NPC tower (or certain POI) solution that I would love to (eventually) see would be a "Signaler". A NPC inside the tower that would light the tower's signal flame when it was under attack. This could prompt a message to be delivered to settlement leadership, or company leadership, whatever. Maybe you limit this to 2 hexes distance from the settlement, or leap down a line of towers with a delay.
As a quick and dirty implementation of this idea, the glowing green crystals around a Tower could turn red whenever someone was scoring capture points on that Tower.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keppers Pass (albeit they sometimes get dragged into hostilities due to their allies)...Again Thod, as "Neutral arbiter", your fired.
I'm talking here that some T7V and Brighthaven floks proudly announced that they mainly hang out at Keppers Pass in preference to their own settlement and the Slammy incident.
Just my interpretation of Slammy moving from Hammerfall to Keepers Pass and the protest of Keppers Pass here on the boards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can tell whether a settlement LIKES combat by whether they patrol.
This week, my travels have taken me far across the map in various directions and I'm amazed at how many PvP windows are open without my encountering anyone eager to PvP.
I'm experiencing the same thing.
When I logged in after dinner Sunday night, I had a report that Golgotha had already taken 6 Towers from Phaeros. Apparently, they were taking - or trying to take - some from Keeper's Pass and Brighthaven at the same time. While I was running down to check on them, they took another, but I never caught a glimpse...
I was really kind of surprised that we were then able to take 8 of Golgotha's Towers in return the same night, virtually all of them right next to Golgotha. One small group encountered a little resistance, but our main group never caught a glimpse...
It was trivial to retake all our Towers last night. We even went up and took a Tower right on Golgotha's doorstep (just south of the pass up into their mountains) and made as much noise as possible - even announced in Golgotha Hex Chat where we were and what we were doing - but there was no response at all. Still, it was fun, and we got to work together with our allies in Keeper's Pass, which is always a bonus.
I submit that the presence of patrols is not a direct signal of whether or not a Settlement likes PvP. There are obviously a great many factors that will play into whether or not Towers get defended at a particular point in time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keeper's Pass is welcome to anyone who wishes to come hang out or craft in our Settlement. We welcome travelers who wish to trade as well. We do not however want people to come in and randomly provoke people. If both parties are interested in a little pvp fun, that's fine (as its been stated before).
Just because we prefer Diplomacy first does not mean that we are not willing to take arms if we need to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keppers Pass (albeit they sometimes get dragged into hostilities )...Again Thod, as "Neutral arbiter", your fired.I'm talking here that some T7V and Brighthaven floks proudly announced that they mainly hang out at Keppers Pass in preference to their own settlement and the Slammy incident.
Just my interpretation of Slammy moving from Hammerfall to Keepers Pass and the protest of Keppers Pass here on the boards.
Yep. You're saying that "the Slammy incident" (edit: or Slammy harassing folks in Keeper's Pass) is "due to their allies". That's the same kind of victim-blaming propaganda we've been dealing with for years. It's a little disappointing that it's coming from a supposedly "neutral" source, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keppers Pass (albeit they sometimes get dragged into hostilities due to their allies)...Again Thod, as "Neutral arbiter", your fired.I'm talking here that some T7V and Brighthaven floks proudly announced that they mainly hang out at Keppers Pass in preference to their own settlement and the Slammy incident.
Just my interpretation of Slammy moving from Hammerfall to Keepers Pass and the protest of Keppers Pass here on the boards.
It is perfectly your right to continue to post and announce yourself as a neutral arbiter who is "in the know". It is also my right to question your credentials on both counts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly the babysit your towers every single night mechanic with no idea when or where an attack may come is riddled with problems. While having much larger numbers of players active would fix some of it, it's still a boring and tedious job that requires diligence and wasted time over activity spent building towards something. But alas it is intended as a temporary state so I cannot harp on it too much.
Future Musings:
I think what I would ideally want to see long run (and I feel some of this has been hinted) is that things classified as 'raiding' behavior can be done somewhat regularly and probably everyday against POIs or Settlements. But raiding behavior should not be an all or nothing activity, it should decrease some effectiveness of the target and gain the raiders something but have no lasting permanent effects.
To wipe something off the map or take it over should require something akin to a mutually agreed upon battle time (I feel like EVE does this to some degree yes?) that results in an organized player battle that will be rarer (thus not a boring daily upkeep activity problem) but the outcome of which will be very important. This sort of setup makes it much easier for more people to participate in these sorts of activities because we can now vaguely plan for them. It's much easier for me to say 'Thursday will be the day I must be on for the big fight' instead of 'I need to be on every single day no matter what or risk losing something we have all worked towards'. Scaling numbers help some of this but only if you blatantly outnumber whoever your opponent is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be the first to admit that KP is a haven for AFK bank alts, slow as rocks Crafters, and a ton of "run-about" players in the SE. We enjoy a fantastic location and want to share it with everyone willing to keep their swords sheathed. Keeper's Pass is intended to be a place of peaceful commerce, hard work, and respect of others rights, including not being slain on the promenade.
Stating it was "due to allies" isn't an inaccurate wording of what our situation was. We've forged great friendships and alliances with the folks nearby, and they find our home to be quite amenable for a number of reasons. This means the Hex is frequently what PvPrs would call "Target Rich." Inferring from Thod's statement that he intended to say Cause > Effect, therefore blame, I never read it as that and I'm sure that isn't was was meant.
I'm really happy with how the first week has turned out, with everyone who is engaged beginning to put their toe in the water and I'm sure we will all have much more interesting battles to talk about soon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All settlements should have to have at least one PvP window between Server up Friday and Server up Monday, plus two others during the week, (with no more than two of a settlement's windows overlapping by more than an hour or so, so that non North American players have realistic opportunities for conquest).
Or maybe two windows on the weekend, and one during the week.
Three PvP windows a week is lots. Seven is too many.
All settlements should have to have at least one PvP window between Server up Friday and Server up Monday, plus two others during the week, (with no more than two of a settlement's windows overlapping by more than an hour or so, so that non North American players have realistic opportunities for conquest).
Or maybe two windows on the weekend, and one during the week.
Three PvP windows a week is lots. Seven is too many.
I think you may be on to something.
4 nights a week off from DEFENSE with 7 nights a week of optional OFFENSE appeals to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Carbon D.Metric
Thanks - I never wanted to put blame on anyone. I just tried to convey that the area around Keepers Pass was not as PvP free as the area around Callambea, Stoneroot and Ozem (to the best of my knowledge).
I didn't weight up every single word I wrote and actually felt worse about mistyping Keepers Pass as in what I felt was a pretty innocent description.
Target Rich might capture it better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think we like PvP alright, I personally like it a lot on a larger scale. Some of our people find War of Towers a chore, and some don't. Right now War of Towers is a means to an end for open free pvp, if that is the case, then they need to make it easier on us to patrol/maintain hexes. Thus I mentioned mobs helping to keep back AFKers and Naked Players in the current iteration.
I would rather not have to patrol or fight over towers that are almost meaningless. At this point keeping towers is just about showing your e-peen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Thannon Forsworn
The big battles in EVE are sometimes planned in advance, but rarely scheduled by mutual agreement between two sides. If one side knows when another side intends to attack, it's usually due to extensive spy networks. Sometimes a major battle evolves from a simple mistake, like a titan being left in-game unattended. The major alliances use multiple out-of-game communication systems, up to and including phone calls and text messages to key personnel. That means that one of those mistakes can be quickly communicated, fleets can form up (somewhat) quickly, and a raiding party that reaches its target unchallenged can face stiff resistance on its way home.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one solution is to have towers your company/settlement controls change colour on the map when they are in the process of being contested.
RP wise, you would have to think that we have scouts/attendants (non-combative) whom we position at the tower who would have magical means of communicating with the leadership when enemies have been sighted.
Game wise, it eliminates some of the man-hours, and also lets the people who WANT pvp to know exactly where to go.
Also, it creates much more room for strategic warfare.
"Two of our towers are being accosted. Is one just a decoy? Do we divide our troops and hope we have enough to beat the attackers down, or do we guess on which tower is the real stage and take the risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time." - Leaders everywhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Absolutely what Dazyk writes.
At the moment you can see that a tower was taken over - afte the fact. Being able to see it happening in the holding window while being challenged would be so much better.
No single character camping 1 hour 23 minutes on his own just because the tower is not under 24/7 watch. This would really enhance the WoT as currently you take them by surprise and not by force.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK. So we know that the WoT is an interim system intended to give us a minimal outlet for PVP while they build the real deal. I'd prefer that we focus our conversation on "what should the eventual territorial-control system look like" instead of "how much programming time can we waste on improving the throwaway code?"
Remember that the eventual system is intended to have a single company controlling a single hex's infrastructure. Also, it's supposed to be impossible to meaningfully attack a Point of Interest without siege equipment. Attacking an Outpost can be done without siege but only causes economic damage rather than threatening sovereignty.
So with those points in mind, what lessons are we learning from WoT that we think need to carry forward into the OE siege system? A company shouldn't need attack notification systems if they're just responsible for one hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OK. So we know that the WoT is an interim system intended to give us a minimal outlet for PVP while they build the real deal. I'd prefer that we focus our conversation on "what should the eventual territorial-control system look like" instead of "how much programming time can we waste on improving the throwaway code?"
Remember that the eventual system is intended to have a single company controlling a single hex's infrastructure. Also, it's supposed to be impossible to meaningfully attack a Point of Interest without siege equipment. Attacking an Outpost can be done without siege but only causes economic damage rather than threatening sovereignty.
So with those points in mind, what lessons are we learning from WoT that we think need to carry forward into the OE siege system? A company shouldn't need attack notification systems if they're just responsible for one hex.
Each player will eventually be able to be in 3 companies, though. So that does make it a little more viable.
Also, more often than not, it will fall upon the Settlement Leadership to be coordinating the PoIs, PVP windows, etc.
Lastly, we have been told (can't find quote ATM) that POIs will be subject to attack by players alone, albeit slowly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are responsible for only one hex then it is likely your numbers are so small that not all companies are online every day.
So we might be back where we started if others in the settlement don't get notification.
In my view some form of notification is necessary unless there are reasons to stay always in the hex you have claimed.
Right now people spend time in settlement (training, bank meeting and exchange), various hexes (monster slaying and gathering) and moving around (getting from a to b).
Of all of these the last is the best to spot attackers which makes traders your best defence which just seems wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are responsible for only one hex then it is likely your numbers are so small that not all companies are online every day.
So we might be back where we started if others in the settlement don't get notification.In my view some form of notification is necessary unless there are reasons to stay always in the hex you have claimed.
Right now people spend time in settlement (training, bank meeting and exchange), various hexes (monster slaying and gathering) and moving around (getting from a to b).
Of all of these the last is the best to spot attackers which makes traders your best defence which just seems wrong.
Exactly what I mean.
Settlement Leader: "Oh crap, our POI in X.X hex is under attack, but Company X.X usually isn't on until X O'clock.. Well, since any member of the alliance can defend a POI held by a company of the settlement, I'll send XYZ group out there to help out."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK. So we know that the WoT is an interim system intended to give us a minimal outlet for PVP while they build the real deal. I'd prefer that we focus our conversation on "what should the eventual territorial-control system look like" instead of "how much programming time can we waste on improving the throwaway code?"
Temporary, yes, but six+ months is a long temporary if needs to keep people engaged. At the moment, the tower wars is not keeping people engaged. Some reason to pay attention is necessary. I continue to push for Random mobs that threaten AFK tower captures. They only need to be high enough to be a low level threat to a character that is not asleep, and turn up once or twice per hour.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OK. So we know that the WoT is an interim system intended to give us a minimal outlet for PVP while they build the real deal. I'd prefer that we focus our conversation on "what should the eventual territorial-control system look like" instead of "how much programming time can we waste on improving the throwaway code?"Temporary, yes, but six+ months is a long temporary if needs to keep people engaged. At the moment, the tower wars is not keeping people engaged. Some reason to pay attention is necessary. I continue to push for Random mobs that threaten AFK tower captures. They only need to be high enough to be a low level threat to a character that is not asleep, and turn up once or twice per hour.
That is a really cool idea. It also would make tower PVP VERY interesting, as random mobs suddenly join the fray!
+15 for this!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
instead of "how much programming time can we waste on improving the throwaway code?"
Addendum:
We also already know that the Holdings list on the company page updates when a Tower you control is usurped by another company; that same tech could likely be used to also show which towers are being contested. It doesn't even have to show anything more than that (ie. contested by whom, etc.).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Temporary, yes, but six+ months is a long temporary if needs to keep people engaged. At the moment, the tower wars is not keeping people engaged. Some reason to pay attention is necessary. I continue to push for Random mobs that threaten AFK tower captures. They only need to be high enough to be a low level threat to a character that is not asleep, and turn up once or twice per hour.
I was running around after server maintenance, checking towers and escalations, so I was thinking about this a bit. I think the main problem we have is there is no scarcity. Having mobs take over towers doesn't necessarily change the scarcity or towers or anything else.
I'll offer three things that could be used to encourage taking and seriously holding towers, things that could also be used later with POIs.
1. The group (settlement) holding a tower (and later a POI) could get a harvesting "infrastructure" bonus, collecting 3 resources per gather instead of 2. (Or an increased chance of multiple gather, or increased chance of gushers).
2. If "poaching" in an area controlled by someone else's tower (and later POIs), the infrastructure bonus works against the harvester, and they collect only 1 resource per gather. (Or a decreased chance of multiples or gushers).
3. When an escalation in the hex is at 50% or more, all players are considered "poachers", even if their settlement nominally holds the tower. Also, any benefits of the tower (point accumulation) or POI/Outposts (bulk resources) is reduced as long as the escalation remains above 50%.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We also already know that the Holdings list on the company page updates when a Tower you control is usurped by another company; that same tech could likely be used to also show which towers are being contested. It doesn't even have to show anything more than that (ie. contested by whom, etc.).
I'm pretty sure the tower holdings don't update until server reset, which is much too late to be useful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A company shouldn't need attack notification systems if they're just responsible for one hex.
Any player that wants to participate in PvE will occasionally find themselves away from their POI. I'd like to know if my POI is being attacked while I'm off killing Ogres somewhere else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We also already know that the Holdings list on the company page updates when a Tower you control is usurped by another company; that same tech could likely be used to also show which towers are being contested. It doesn't even have to show anything more than that (ie. contested by whom, etc.).I'm pretty sure the tower holdings don't update until server reset, which is much too late to be useful.
The list updates if a tower you owned at the start of UpTime in a day is subsequently captured by another company.
Then, at downtime the next day, that tower is removed from your list and added to the list of the capturing company.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK. So we know that the WoT is an interim system intended to give us a minimal outlet for PVP while they build the real deal. I'd prefer that we focus our conversation on "what should the eventual territorial-control system look like" instead of "how much programming time can we waste on improving the throwaway code?"Temporary, yes, but six+ months is a long temporary if needs to keep people engaged. At the moment, the tower wars is not keeping people engaged. Some reason to pay attention is necessary. I continue to push for Random mobs that threaten AFK tower captures. They only need to be high enough to be a low level threat to a character that is not asleep, and turn up once or twice per hour.
The tech to have local NPC mobs attack a Tower being captured would likely be reused to have local NPC mobs attack a Harvesting Camp. Sounds like a win-win to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OK. So we know that the WoT is an interim system intended to give us a minimal outlet for PVP while they build the real deal. I'd prefer that we focus our conversation on "what should the eventual territorial-control system look like" instead of "how much programming time can we waste on improving the throwaway code?"Temporary, yes, but six+ months is a long temporary if needs to keep people engaged. At the moment, the tower wars is not keeping people engaged. Some reason to pay attention is necessary. I continue to push for Random mobs that threaten AFK tower captures. They only need to be high enough to be a low level threat to a character that is not asleep, and turn up once or twice per hour.That is a really cool idea. It also would make tower PVP VERY interesting, as random mobs suddenly join the fray!
+15 for this!
Perhaps a variant way to build and test the code for mob response to gushers that is planned?