Posted by MattKan

Of course, you don't want the map to get too crowded. But I am always a proponent of expanding the map, as long as it is done in quality, because I think a larger world becomes more immersing and the most fun I've ever had on Classic was exploring around the map.

Towers should never be used for exploring. Five minutes of checking out something cool doesn't justify diluting the already watered down difficulty.  

I'm not saying towers should be used for exploration, I'm saying that new towns should always be a consideration and towers could be a component of these towns.  

Posted by MattKan

I'm not saying towers should be used for exploration, I'm saying that new towns should always be a consideration and towers could be a component of these towns.

Nah. If you tie towers to new towns then you have to tie releases to the player count unless you want to kill competition.  

Posted by Vic

Anybody want to explain why they voted too many?

I voted too many because deadwood and sardons are terrible and should be removed for that reason. I think the overall number of towers probably doesn't really matter all that much though, in terms of making forts more/less competitive/entertaining. My reasoning... that I've put in a spoiler cause it got a little long winded and a bit off topic...

Spoiler

Note: I'm not on iClassic playing forts all the time (or at all.... in like a year), so what I'm about to say could be 100% nonsense.

There is a group of people (probably the majority) who are playing forts regularly not to have fun, but because they want the reward (HATZ, and I guess prestige?). For them. forts are just a means to an end.

When holding a fort, they would rather it not be under attack, so they can idle/chat, than for it to be under attack. This is understandable, as holding a fort that is under attack from a real threat for 1000 hours would be both difficult but mind numbing, even with most of the forts giving the defenders a massive advantage. Thus the pool of players interested solely in the fort rewards have mostly allied together so there are rarely any major conflicts over control of forts.

If one or two forts were added, this group of people would simply spread out and create more guilds and use the method of constantly recruiting and dropping people to control the new forts as well. If one or two forts were removed, they'd merge and there would be fewer guilds controlling the forts, and the core groups of members of towering guilds would just get larger.

The best thing that could be done to improve forts IMO is to remove the hat reward. I'd much rather be towering with a bunch of people who are doing it because they like it, rather than who are doing it as a sort of job, even if that means there are far fewer people involved. Hat rewards are more effective IMO for things like sparring, where people can't just idle their way into them.

 

Posted by Ph8

The best thing that could be done to improve forts IMO is to remove the hat reward. I'd much rather be towering with a bunch of people who are doing it because they like it, rather than who are doing it as a sort of job, even if that means there are far fewer people involved. Hat rewards are more effective IMO for things like sparring, where people can't just idle their way into them.

Got a point, here (Bold added). The issue with towers is that the same guilds always control them, and they typically just reform their guild and start again when they hit their hat goal, breaking the backs of noobs along the way.

How about balancing the system in place somehow, not necessarily removing the hats, but making it more fair/accessible to all players and not just the 16-hour-a-day hat fiends?  

Posted by MattKan

With the playercount increasing so rapidly, I think it is important for the number of towers to increase as well. More playercount = more players in towers, which means only stronger guilds will be able to hold them.

Guilds are still limited to 25 players. so it doesnt affect how easy/hard it is to hold/take towers. It just increases competition (which I think is a good thing) because there are people attacking more frequently.

However, you are correct that noob guilds have little chance of holding towers for a long time (but then again, that has always been this way). It does seem like there are fewer noob tower guilds that dont have at least 1-3 experienced towerers.  

I think the number of towers is just right, maybe if one was in Belle (or whatever it was renamed to), that would be a good addition-- and could be used very well seeing as how isolated Belle is, making it a good place to defend, although it is a little too close to the castle.

Personally though if more towers were added I'd like to see the themes and play style have a little more variation, maybe and underwater tower where your movement is slowed because you are swimming, maybe you can only stay in the tower so long before you are warped out so that you don't drown, that could make defense a lot more interesting.

Or maybe towers where the objective isn't just to hit a single flag, but to have multiple flags, throughout the tower that must be claimed, that way you have to plan your attacks/defenses better rather just rushing a flag.


TL;DR I don't think that more towers should be added for the time being unless they actually contribute something new to PvP.  

Posted by Kendama

I think a good idea for an tower layout would be one large hall maybe with maybe a 4-5 player width and extreemly long, having to actually scroll up the level to keep to the end. It would be fun to see the defending guild and attacking guild clash in a format like this

I want this combined with sardons lava level idea. People would need strategy for sure to hold. Plus lava gfx, hell yeah.there could be safe space plat forms and the lava could catch you on fire that, could spread to other players. Hahahaha

Posted by MrSimons

.

Or maybe towers where the objective isn't just to hit a single flag, but to have multiple flags, throughout the tower that must be claimed, that way you have to plan your attacks/defenses better rather just rushing a flag.


.

yesyeysyes  

I think there should be more towers, even though some are inactive (like deadwood). I suggest an easier way to transport to forts.

Town teleportation anyone? It will make it easier for guilds to meet up and make a plan!  

I think the question you should be asking is "How can we make guild forts less boring and pointless?"

I mean, guild forts, hours, controlling a piece of the map... it means nothing  

Just throwing out an idea here but I was always fond on the idea of having multiple flags for one tower. For example if you had a large amount of guild members at the tower you would have two flags however if you had a reasonably small amount of guild members you could be put in the single flag zone. The benefits of this would be a lot more smaller guilds could take towers a lot easier which would also encourage skill (well as much skill as you can get on this game). The defenders would have to think a lot more logicaly and also would face them with the decision of using a small guild or a larger one. I can think of a lot more but i don't want to overcomplicate things.  

Posted by Hadzz

Just throwing out an idea here but I was always fond on the idea of having multiple flags for one tower. For example if you had a large amount of guild members at the tower you would have two flags however if you had a reasonably small amount of guild members you could be put in the single flag zone. The benefits of this would be a lot more smaller guilds could take towers a lot easier which would also encourage skill (well as much skill as you can get on this game). The defenders would have to think a lot more logicaly and also would face them with the decision of using a small guild or a larger one. I can think of a lot more but i don't want to overcomplicate things.

I actually like this idea, more than one flag makes more of a challenge so instead of worrying of just one where everyone can crowd it, players can attack other flags that are part of that said tower to take parts of it. Something like a checkpoint for attackers to advance.  

Less guild forts=More guilds attacking a single fort at a time.  

If we remove the hat, it will make uncompetitive, if we leave it like this, more corruption will occur to almost every guild.
do not add/remove towers. just add a new reward system.  

Posted by Ash Ketchum

I think there should be more towers, even though some are inactive (like deadwood). I suggest an easier way to transport to forts.

Town teleportation anyone? It will make it easier for guilds to meet up and make a plan!

#i want my warp rings and my boots

Posted by Zetectic

If we remove the hat, it will make uncompetitive, if we leave it like this, more corruption will occur to almost every guild.
do not add/remove towers. just add a new reward system.

keep the hat maybe reward players more
honestly towering is fun but in the end people do things for rewards

Posted by Lazerlatte

I think the question you should be asking is "How can we make guild forts less boring and pointless?"

I mean, guild forts, hours, controlling a piece of the map... it means nothing

profit from shop purchases
example: Ur guild just took over Mod Tower u control mod
Meanwhile i ride on my black donkey to mod handle furniture and buy a Light orb
I pay the price, every member of the guild that owns mod gets 5% of my purchase