How to do it
Bionitrous hit it right with how the Land Control should work.
On another note if the Cathedral down in the south end of SWB isn't going to be made into a dungeon or some kind of useful building then my clan would love to control it or the area around it. Already a perfect area with an omni outpost nearby.
Clan Elder of The Pilgrims
These bases have to be in under used playingfield because this game can barely handle 30 people in the same area. If you start having big battles in popular playingfields then there are going to be alot of servers crash just like the one that happened during the event over the weekend.
althought cities can not have towers, what about outside, at the entrances?
is it feasible that a group can "block" the entrance to cities? so that anyone leaving city will pop into the PvP area?
are there any areas - other than inside cities where towers will not be allowed?
if so - i think there should be a substantial "no-tower" zone surrounding citites and safe areas
I think that's a good idea too, there should be something worth having in the PF though, a few of the new boss camps would be cool.Originally posted by Graukonig
These bases have to be in under used playingfield because this game can barely handle 30 people in the same area. If you start having big battles in popular playingfields then there are going to be alot of servers crash just like the one that happened during the event over the weekend.
Eek!
No, no towers outside cities either. No towers anywhere in places of high traffic. Like Graukonig said they should be in remote areas. Though point of the towers aren't to grief people due to server lag or "own" a dyna-camp or dungeon. It's to get the bonuses from the tower provides and have some organized PvP. That is its own reward for the towers.
Clan Elder of The Pilgrims
No a decent camp would be a good reward. That or a dungeon enterance, which would probably be best seeings people could be in the dungeon and it wouldn't lag because of people outside.
I think it'd be really cool to have a once a month fight over the zone surrounding a dungeon, not with anything like tara but something w/ a decent spawn time and worth of something like nelebs.
Land control issues...
25% and political zones seem the logical choices for disputes/claims for placing towers/areas of influence. This can then incorporate the idea of capturing outposts and turning them to the opposition.
Placing towers in opposition controlled territory should be allowed, but with certain liabilities attached. Besides attracting the interest of players, these towers should also get the attention of the opposing forces in the form of NPC roaming patrols. The closer and larger assembly of towers appear, the more heat they attract, both from players and NPC patrols. This could effectively stem the proliferation of forests of towers appearing in areas near cities and outposts, for example.
Towers could also have their own fields of influence, which is basically a zone similar to the arena in Omni-Entertainment. This allows players to be both aware of the zone and have the option to stay clear or head into the towers' field of influence.
In mayhem zones, apply similar logical thought - why would anyone want to build a tower in the middle of nowhere, unless it had a significant advantage?
Towers should have advantages for teams on long range missions, for example. Advantages (imho though, these are prerequisits for the whole point of towers - multi-purpose tools, basically) include a save term, and possibly a temporary grid/warp term - the advantages of this are obvious.
If you want to take it further, why not make adding towers to existing camps increase their influence? More NPC patrols and the addition of terminals appear after a threshold is passed.
That'll do for now, otherwise I'll get interested in the booster idea and be disappointed when it finally ships lacking any decent benefits/ideas.
I have one additional idea. We should be able to take over those ruined towns/camps in the artery valleys. They aren't being used and it would be something for the larger guilds to fight over. But only allow one of these per guild. In these towns there could be shops and terminals that are only open to members of the guild that control the town. Even better would be if the guild could decide who it would allow in the city.
*If you haven't seen these ruins check them out. They are pretty cool looking and usually filled with demon MOBs
Well land control whould be around hunting spots. I would love to protect Sabalum
Two sisters practicing medicine on Rubika and Shadowlands Pomy and Julka.
As a doctor i would prescribe you to use some common sense and a vacation to Real Life"
If i ever start a new character in Eve i will choose a name something like "aieerjjnnvajjnasdio11e3".
The point of having your tower up and running is the organizational bonus it provides, not control over a camp/something else of intrinsic value.
Gunned down the young. Now old, crotchety, and back.
Long Way out
I don't know about you, but I've flew around Rubi Ka and well it's big and boring and nothing goes on out there. My thing is that will there be a way to grid from the inside of the tower or something or automatically grid into it? It's a long ways to some places out there. PLUS would it be at all possible to set up booths for selling items to make your clan some cash?
The point of this booster or anything in this game is whatever you want it to be. Also I think the developers did consider controlling an area of some importance:
"Land control is the main feature of the first Anarchy Online booster pack along with additional graphic updates and new sounds. Much larger in scope to Funcom's previously discussed ideas of land control, this feature will be vital for those players taking an active part in the conflict between the planet's two warring sides: Omni-Tek and the clans."
- quote from booster pack press release
One of the main feature is that you will be able to grid to your guilds tower. I'm not sure if that is also an option for the personal towers.
I read somewhere that the possibilites of placing towers would let people lure monsters to them. If placed in a highly populated area of very high level monsters, would this not cause people to leech XP?
It is just a thought, but if people are able to lure, lets say sandworms to a tower which is protective with guards, this would allow people to get the kill and gain stupid amounts of XP by doing nothing.
Also, in places where unique mobs roam around, would this not cause unique camping?. Just a thought really, but if this is true expect to see many more high level characters who have really done nothing to deserve the level.
You're referring to personal towers, I believe, which FC seems to have indicated will be comparable to a stationary pet.Originally posted by Enchantical
I read somewhere that the possibilites of placing towers would let people lure monsters to them. If placed in a highly populated area of very high level monsters, would this not cause people to leech XP?
It is just a thought, but if people are able to lure, lets say sandworms to a tower which is protective with guards, this would allow people to get the kill and gain stupid amounts of XP by doing nothing.
Also, in places where unique mobs roam around, would this not cause unique camping?. Just a thought really, but if this is true expect to see many more high level characters who have really done nothing to deserve the level.
Sooo... No more of a problem than engies /pet hunting with their Slayers. Which is to say, yeah, you can do it, but you won't gain XP very quickly at all, and you still have to be careful of adds and so forth.
Gunned down the young. Now old, crotchety, and back.
Well unless pathing gets a big fix giving the command /pet hunt to a tower would probably be as useful as giving it to a slayerOriginally posted by Kiryat-Dharin
Sooo... No more of a problem than engies /pet hunting with their Slayers. Which is to say, yeah, you can do it, but you won't gain XP very quickly at all, and you still have to be careful of adds and so forth.
Dont you think I look like Geordie from Star Trek?
<-----------------------------------------------------------
Actually I look more of a cross between him and Picard don't I?
Reminds me of the old joke....Originally posted by Warlock
Well unless pathing gets a big fix giving the command /pet hunt to a tower would probably be as useful as giving it to a slayer
How do you path a STATIONARY object?
Make a slayer-droid.
No, seriously, the personal towers don't move. Outdoors, pet pathing is better (not fixed, but better).
Gunned down the young. Now old, crotchety, and back.
Since the Oslo office moved I would like to take control of the new Oslo office.
I still don't mind you teaming with me CZ but Cosmik has to go down and so does April.
I figure we should be able to hold the Oslo office for at least 3 days if we get enough snack chips, donuts, or whatever else you FC employees eat all day.
well the land control areas should be areas between the "omni-zones" and the "clan-zones". Good areas would be:
upper stret west bank
upper stret east bank
stret west bank
stret east bank
central artery valley
deep artery valley
those areas should become omni or clan zones when most of land are hold by one of the sides and should be 0% or 25% zones too. central artery valley and deep artery valley should be completly 0% zones except of some important areas like a city or grid points where we can rest. In this two zones we can attack towers of our own faction in the other 4 zones (upper stret west bank, etc..) we can only attack towers of the other faction.
Neutrals shouldn't be allowed to play in this 6 zones, cause they are neutrals and don't attend to the "war" but they should have newland desert and mort as their land control zone which all factions can attack but the zone still should stay neutral all the time.
I would like to hold alot of terretory in Pleasant Meadows
Holding all the camps so all guildies would have easier lvling and then on the same time keep away NS and GA looking clanners, also would be cool holding terretory close to the road that goes between omni OP, 20k and SEB.
Making mort omni terretory would also be great and the same with newland/newland desert(MMD)
Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
- Homer J Simpson
Homer: Okay, brain. You don't like me, and I don't like you, but let's get through this thing and then
I can continue killing you with beer.
Homer's Brain: It's a deal!
Obviously everyone would like to control important spots and claim them for their faction. But this question is more or less moot since it has already been stated that, and I quote..."The towers can be placed in pre-defined outdoor areas. This means no towers in and around the gates of cities or outposts, roads, unique or quest NPCs, zone borders, etc, but useful and tactical points will remain open for capture. Several towers may exist at once on some playfields.
What exactly does FC consider to be a strategic and tactical point that is nowhere close to civilization? And what exactly does it mean when you say that several towers may exist on some playfields? A playfield equals a whole zone, will only one tower per zone be allowed in most playfields then? How will you ever be able to let small and medium factions even get the chance to get their own tower since the really big factions will hog surely gain a monopoly on them in most zones?
If this is correct you will face a whine storm that would make anything posted here seems like a breeze.
Basically what you seem to be doing is that by not letting players have towers near to any spot that could be called even remotely strategic, the fact that you have your tower anyplace make that spot the strategic one since there is a one tower limit in each playfield.
Or does it simply mean that your faction is only allowed one tower in each playfield? In that case...please disregard the above.
Finally to answer your question... I would like to place my tower in strategic places like around the gates of cities and outposts, roads, and quest NPCs, but i will not be allowed to do that so that means I have even less reason to buy the booster.
Posting Permissions
