Sure you can. Join Aragon. Use the threat of violating Aragon's agreements to force them to change the status quo.
Do you really believe we're *just now* learning how to play PFO politics? :D
Sometimes the tail wags the dog.
I'm in favour of an unaligned group taking the tower.
On a sidenote, can someone explain to me how this works? You leave your settlement, form an unaligned company, and capture the tower from yourself? How does this get the tower back to the original settlement? Does the unaligned company then join the victim settlement to drop the tower back in their lap, and then leave?
Up until the last few posts I thought you were genuinely concerned about the structure of the game mechanics. Well played.
I am. Please don't doubt that, sincerely. I am passionate mainly because I want the game to thrive. My apparent downfall is I don't agree with much of the Alpha Aristocracy on how that is achieved in design.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm in favour of an unaligned group taking the tower.On a sidenote, can someone explain to me how this works? You leave your settlement, form an unaligned company, and capture the tower from yourself? How does this get the tower back to the original settlement? Does the unaligned company then join the victim settlement to drop the tower back in their lap, and then leave?
It doesn't. it puts it back in a 24 hour PvP state so that anyone can take it at any time. At the moment, it's accruing a training bonus for Aragon (and only accessible during their window), which says they don't want it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just out of curiosity, Doc, have you ever expressed the opinion that anyone who logs into a PvP game accepts that they might be killed by other players?Not really sure what you mean. I don't recall typing that. Either way, I don't equate PvP with necessarily with combat. I equate it with player conflict in general.
This whole situation was PvP.
Winner! PvP is more than mashing your attacks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I don't accept is being denied the ability to train skills and play the game if/or because a player doesn't like me.Just out of curiosity, Doc, have you ever expressed the opinion that anyone who logs into a PvP game accepts that they might be killed by other players?
Just out of curiosity, Doc, have you ever expressed the opinion that anyone who logs into a PvP game accepts that they might be killed by other players?Not really sure what you mean. I don't recall typing that. Either way, I don't equate PvP with necessarily with combat. I equate it with player conflict in general.
This whole situation was PvP.
I was very specifically trying to gauge your stance on whether or not someone "accepts" PvP by logging into the game.
For the record, I think they do.
Uh...so, is it just me, or is the War of Towers kinda failing?
From Bluddwolf's* earlier post, I gather that people are generally ignoring other people's towers and not bothering to defend their own, since there're so many uncaptured ones thanks to the huge attrition rate.
If that's so, fixing this problem may have to become Goblinworks's new top priority, since it means the system designed to test out hostile player interactions has failed.
*I think it was him. Too rushed to check.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To ask a slightly off-topic but relevant question. Is it currently possible (meaning equally effective) to base a company out of the NPC towns? I thought that was suppose to be the default...and a company that did so would then not have to worry about being bound by the rules, agreements, taxes, or alliances of a PC town.
I am not suggesting Allegiant do this, I respect their right to stand up for what they believe in exactly the way they have been doing...in fact, I thank them for this content. Just something I wondered when trying to think of a solution. It is not afterall, as if there is any real benefit to being part of a PC settlement at the moment.
I just have not done any group management yet, so asking...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is it currently possible (meaning equally effective) to base a company out of the NPC towns?
It is already possible for Characters to have enough XP to purchase Training that is only available at PC Settlements that control more than 6 Towers. So, I think the answer to your question is "no", it's not equally effective. However, for anyone content to broaden their Tier 1 Training, the NPC Settlements are just as effective as PC Settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is it currently possible (meaning equally effective) to base a company out of the NPC towns?It is already possible for Characters to have enough XP to purchase Training that is only available at PC Settlements that control more than 6 Towers. So, I think the answer to your question is "no", it's not equally effective. However, for anyone content to broaden their Tier 1 Training, the NPC Settlements are just as effective as PC Settlements.
Okay, thanks for the response. I did not realize we had already passed the level of training NPC settlements give.
EDIT: (general question, not an attack) I am also curious as to why a company who does not belong to a settlement would bother taking a tower. It is not like standing there for 83 man-minutes or whatever is PvP...and trying to defend is less effective than just going to take a different tower, so as far as I know, rarely happens. Would the company get any reward?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Uh...so, is it just me, or is the War of Towers kinda failing?
It depends on what you think the intent was for the War of Towers. I always thought it was a sop thrown in to allow pvp with minimal progamming. No hex is free-for-all pvp 24/7, but every tower hex is ffa pvp part of the day.
I'm going by the devs' account of what the War of Towers was for: To give players and devs a chance to observe and test PvP constructively. It wasn't just for our immediate fun, it was meant to be a legitimate process of evaluation. Not that people are really taking advantage of either, thanks to this NAP, but there I go again... ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...so, is it just me, or is the War of Towers kinda failing?
- There is no scarcity of towers. A settlement who wants more towers can just go get some.
- It's not possible to defend towers. If someone takes away your towers, you just go get different ones. See above.
In the current state of the game, towers are just a way to flag some hexes FFA for some or all of the day.
Not possible or not practical?
More's the pity. So it really is just more meaningless PvP, sans the rep penalties. In fact, it could be argued that taking someone's tower is basically an extremely mild form of griefing, since the only possible motivation is to screw with 'em for a few minutes before they go to grab another. ;P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Uh...so, is it just me, or is the War of Towers kinda failing?It depends on what you think the intent was for the War of Towers. I always thought it was a sop thrown in to allow pvp with minimal progamming. No hex is free-for-all pvp 24/7, but every tower hex is ffa pvp part of the day.
It is "working as intended." :) I would not want any significant effort to make changes directly to WoT at this time. If any changes made to WoT is part of the long term PoI and other control features mentioned, then that would be ok.
So realizing the current limitation of the system, what should we do as a player based to make the best of the situation in the mean time. Should some players be gated out of higher level training for pointing out and demonstrating the absurdity of the current situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going by the devs' account of what the War of Towers was for: To give players and devs a chance to observe and test PvP constructively. It wasn't just for our immediate fun, it was meant to be a legitimate process of evaluation. Not that people are really taking advantage of either, thanks to this NAP, but there I go again... ;)
So you think that having 250 towers we aren't fighting over instead of only having 100 towers we aren't fighting over would increase the amount of PvP that's going on?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm going by the devs' account of what the War of Towers was for: To give players and devs a chance to observe and test PvP constructively. It wasn't just for our immediate fun, it was meant to be a legitimate process of evaluation. Not that people are really taking advantage of either, thanks to this NAP, but there I go again... ;)
Actually, I think that this incident has provided quite a bit of information for GW on what players will accept and what they would like to see from what did and did not work.
This is "A Learning Experience."
Core towers are more fun to fight over and easier to defend, so yeah, I think it'd help the first factor ("for fun") if we could go after them.
This does mean that following the NAP for "security" reasons is a little bit pointless, but eeeeh. I gotta catch the bus.
I'll elaborate later, but battery is literally dying, too. My views aren't as firm and bitter as that post makes them seem but MAN am I in a rush.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If anything, the NAP improves your chance of finding a fight, because instead of having to look in 250 hexes to find someone who wants to defend, you only have to look in 100 (and not find anyone who's bothering to defend)
We can't even get people interested in patrolling the half-dozen non-core-six towers we have to see if anyone's taking them. Our best attempt (in taking over one of Blunt-Logic's towers) has resulted in the tower being traded back and forth a couple of times without anyone from the other side in the picture.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would think at this point, an unaffiliated group's best tactic would be the denial of unhindered training for affiliated groups.
Attack their towers to prevent the accrual of training time, make them defend and/or re-take, or then go after the tower they've moved to.
If you can't have on demand training, why allow your enemies to?
This isn't griefing, it's tactics. It's meaningful player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think at this point, an unaffiliated group's best tactic would be the denial of unhindered training for affiliated groups.
Attack their towers to prevent the accrual of training time, make them defend and/or re-take, or then go after the tower they've moved to.
If you can't have on demand training, why allow your enemies to?This isn't griefing, it's tactics. It's meaningful player interaction.
Exactly, and I am actually really surprised that there are not bands of "unaffiliated" alts doing just that. I definitely do not advocate for it, I would prefer people just do their own dirty work and we can all enjoy the drama that unfolds from doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
EDIT: (general question, not an attack) I am also curious as to why a company who does not belong to a settlement would bother taking a tower. It is not like standing there for 83 man-minutes or whatever is PvP...and trying to defend is less effective than just going to take a different tower, so as far as I know, rarely happens. Would the company get any reward?
There was talk at one point in time of giving Unaffiliated Companies some boon based on some math around how many Towers they held and for how long, similar to the boon Settlements will receive, but I don't think there are any solid plans and I seem to remember one of the devs coming back and saying it wasn't likely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm going by the devs' account of what the War of Towers was for: To give players and devs a chance to observe and test PvP constructively. It wasn't just for our immediate fun, it was meant to be a legitimate process of evaluation. Not that people are really taking advantage of either, thanks to this NAP, but there I go again... ;)
I'll take the stance that anything not for our immediate fun should have been dealt with during Alpha. Now that we are in "subscription" mode, I expect features and development to occur for the sake of fun. Evaluation during the fun is perfectly acceptable, but evaluation as a primary instead of secondary purpose should now occur on the test servers.
I'll also take the stance that War of Towers is not yet a success. There is very little fun in it, largely because there is very little chance of success for the defenders. When the outcome of a conflict is so predictable, there is little point for the losing side to participate. As others said, just move on and find another tower.
The meaningful portion of War of Towers seems to be this diplomatic game aspect, which I believe was meant to be the sub-conflict rather than the primary one. Of course, without the diplomatic game, there might be more PvP but I think we would see the few big powers picking on the small and easy targets. Not out of malice, but out of simple math.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Core towers are more fun to fight over and easier to defend, so yeah, I think it'd help the first factor ("for fun") if we could go after them.
This does mean that following the NAP for "security" reasons is a little bit pointless, but eeeeh. I gotta catch the bus.
They have not been easier to defend since everyone resurrects at the same shrines. Perhaps now with husks, they might be easier to defend since a fresh player only has 20 deaths before they need to re-gear and running to the bank is easier for core 6 defenders. But this is also only going to be the case for groups big enough to have larger PvP windows.
But then they also need to make it so that you can't just run in naked to grab a few points toward the tower, because right now you don't even need to PvP to capture. You just keep running in and dieing until you earn enough points en masse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main problem with defending Towers currently is that you have to keep the Tower free of Attackers in order to reduce their capture points. This essentially requires the Defenders to so outnumber the Attackers that the Attackers get killed before making it to the Tower.
I believe this is going to change in the next update (in about two weeks) such that Defenders will be able to reduce the Attackers capture points even if the Attackers are present inside the Tower.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can we confirm that the OP is satisfied with a private resolution? Is it satisfactory to all signatories if the offended is sated? Does the NAP allow for situations in which the offended withdraws the complaint? Or does the NAP require the process, once invoked, be followed to completion?
Just so we common folk see the aristocracy is getting stuff done...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd also like to see an alert system for the defending companies (https://pathfinderonlinecrowdforging.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Tower-Capture-ale rt/72782-30320).
Ideascale - Tower Capture alert
[Edit] I sense a disturbance in the Force...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As the signatory that signed for Brighthaven, as well as the petitioner that posted the OP, I have the right to withdraw the petition, before a tribunal.
I recognize a few of the negative situations that we have encountered here, as well as the treaty not providing for some of the niche situations we see. Under these circumstances, I ask for reparations to be made in lieu of a tribunal, and Brighthaven will withdraw the petition.
...
After re-reading the above, I must admit I am unsure if you withdrew the petition, or simply reserved your right to do so. I will just wait and see what happens next.
And, sorry for getting involved when it is none of my business, my curiosity has a bad habit of getting the best of me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd also like to see an alert system for the defending companies (https://pathfinderonlinecrowdforging.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Tower-Capture-ale rt/72782-30320).Ideascale - Tower Capture alert
[Edit] I sense a disturbance in the Force...
Sorry, I felt like I was going off topic and I didn't want to hijack the thread. :) Moved here.
I'm going by the devs' account of what the War of Towers was for: To give players and devs a chance to observe and test PvP constructively. It wasn't just for our immediate fun, it was meant to be a legitimate process of evaluation. Not that people are really taking advantage of either, thanks to this NAP, but there I go again... ;)I'll take the stance that anything not for our immediate fun should have been dealt with during Alpha. Now that we are in "subscription" mode, I expect features and development to occur for the sake of fun. Evaluation during the fun is perfectly acceptable, but evaluation as a primary instead of secondary purpose should now occur on the test servers.
Bolded a couple bits for emphasis.
I'll also take the stance that War of Towers is not yet a success. There is very little fun in it, largely because there is very little chance of success for the defenders. When the outcome of a conflict is so predictable, there is little point for the losing side to participate. As others said, just move on and find another tower.
The meaningful portion of War of Towers seems to be this diplomatic game aspect, which I believe was meant to be the sub-conflict rather than the primary one. Of course, without the diplomatic game, there might be more PvP but I think we would see the few big powers picking on the small and easy targets. Not out of malice, but out of simple math.
I kind of wonder if it would really have much effect if a few settlements, or even just one settlement, dropped out of the NAP. There's a huge surplus of towers right now, so would it really be likely to have any meaningful effect?
They have not been easier to defend since everyone resurrects at the same shrines.
But surely it's easier to mobilize a defending force if the tower's only a couple minutes away from base?
But then they also need to make it so that you can't just run in naked to grab a few points toward the tower, because right now you don't even need to PvP to capture. You just keep running in and dieing until you earn enough points en masse.
So there being defenders in the base has no effect except to stall?
Ouch.
I believe this is going to change in the next update (in about two weeks) such that Defenders will be able to reduce the Attackers capture points even if the Attackers are present inside the Tower.
Ah, gotcha. Looking forward to that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ KC
To defend a tower you have to sit there around 1-7 hours, depending on your PvP window. You must then defend your tower from people accruing points, they need 1,000 to capture. Defenders only reduce points if no attackers are in the tower circle. Most shrines are just a short distance away (some within site of the tower) so that the attackers respawn and move back to the tower extremely fast.
What this creates is a situation, where you could constantly have people running in and out of the tower gaining points, in a steady stream of naked bodies. They don't even need to attack anyone, and if they have foci they can just heal themselves and make the situation worse.
To battle this situation, you need an overwhelming force compared to the "Attackers." Probably 2 to 1, defenders to attacks, if not more is needed to kill them so fast that they can't gain points steadily. Then, like I said at the beginning, you have to sit there and hold that tower for 1-7 hours.
