Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing


Pathfinder Online

201 to 250 of 381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

One thing to consider is that 'guilds' in other games often have their size dictated by the fact they are theme parks.

For example, in WoW most raiding guilds will have a couple of members over what they need so you'll probably wind up with most 'hardcore' raiding guilds there now having between 15 and 30 members, depending on whether they do 10 or 25 man raids.

The 'social guild' phenomenon we see in WoW with the introduction of guild levels isn't something that was really seen before. Now, you seen people creating massive guilds to line their own pockets.

In a sandbox where PvE elements aren't as prominent as in a theme park, I think we'll see a lower overall 'chartered company' size moving into alliances with one another. Where there's no mechanical requirement to recruit more people, then I think we'll see a lot of guilds with a natural limit at about 2-3 dozen characters because those will be the people who 'fit in' with the guild concept.

Goblin Squad Member

I may be missing something Ryan said but here's my take on the whole "size" issue between CCs and Settlements, and ultimately Nations.

I expect the vast majority of Settlements will BEGIN as a group from a CC or even multiple CCs but once established the bulk of a Settlement's population will be composed of members NOT in that original CC or perhaps even in any CC.

I think there's two dynamics that need to be considered.

1> Settlement/Nation building
and
2> Settlement/Nation sustainment

I think the latter is where much of the longterm gameplay will exist. And in that vein that's where the bulk of the players will engage in some sort of group joining.

I'd love to think I could become the head of a Settlement or Nation based on the CC I can imagine composed of my friends. But the reality is even with the 20 or so of us that currently regularly play MMOs together, I doubt we'd have the cohesion and time necessary to really expand in that way ourselves. So my guess is it's FAR more likely we'll have a CC and JOIN an existing Settlement/Nation and support that greater cause together.

I expect that to be the norm. Not everyone will be a king.

Editing to add: In my experience with MMOs...going all the way back to MUDDing back in 1991..those huge guilds aka larger than 20 or so are the rare exception to the rule. And even when I've been part of, directly or tangentally, them it's been my experience that there are smaller groups of friends that make subsets within the guild that typically run together. More than a homogeneous pool of 200+ players who all interact with each other equally. It's really more likely 20 groups of 10+ that tend to run together with the added bonus of being in a bigger group to fill in a spot or two occasionally.


I'd be inclined to agree. I think that we'll see some mega-alliances with similar themes (for example, I can foresee that GL et al could become a major political force) and then we'll also get the OOC alliances you see in Eve.

I think that there's little chance of avoiding groups like Goon Swarm once the game becomes well-known. It might be down to the roleplaying alliances to declare war on the OOC alliances to limit their impact on the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Lictor Fedryn Mannorac wrote:

I'd be inclined to agree. I think that we'll see some mega-alliances with similar themes (for example, I can foresee that GL et al could become a major political force) and then we'll also get the OOC alliances you see in Eve.

I think that there's little chance of avoiding groups like Goon Swarm once the game becomes well-known. It might be down to the roleplaying alliances to declare war on the OOC alliances to limit their impact on the game.

I'll go one step further...I'd like to see the civilized alliances staying aggressive and vigilent against ANY groups who exist to break Wheaton's law. As I see it, roleplaying isn't always the defining measuring stick between players who exist to have fun and players who exist to be a jerk.

The REALLY interesting part about this statement to me is that these things are a kind of RL alignment system that exists as a seperate layer above and beyond in game alignments.

I expect this game to be pretty fun. Really looking forward to watching it progress and being part of something special.

Goblin Squad Member

Just to clarify one more time...

Groups of players who want official recognition and game mechanics to support and define their community have an option to start a Chartered Company. But, Chartered Companies will not be able to own/claim land or buildings and will be limited size-wise to about 25.

For anything larger, official guilds will be defined by their members shared stake in a plot of land...called a settlement, kingdom, or nation.

And...these will be the only official ways to create and/or define an in-game community.

*Of course, I understand people are welcome to organize themselves and partake in any "out of game" communities/forums/groups/associations they want.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:

Just to clarify one more time...

Groups of players who want official recognition and game mechanics to support and define their community have an option to start a Chartered Company. But, Chartered Companies will not be able to own/claim land or buildings and will be limited size-wise to about 25.

For anything larger, official guilds will be defined by their members shared stake in a plot of land...called a settlement, kingdom, or nation.

And...these will be the only official ways to create and/or define an in-game community.

*Of course, I understand people are welcome to organize themselves and partake in any "out of game" communities/forums/groups/associations they want.

It dosn't sound to me like chartered companies will have NO way to have buildings of any kind (but most buildings will likely have to be built within a settlement).

It sounds to me like, hideouts, watchtowers, forts and inns, all fall into the realm of pre-settlement options. If I am understanding correctly watchtowers are primarally intended to simplify the process of building a fort (offering a central storage for while the fort is constructed and an early warning for if the unbuilt fort is about to be attacked.

Forts can be converted into settlements so, that obviously must be in play before one has a settlement.

Inns, well I have less understanding of the intended role of an inn, namely what the effect that they will have on the PVE content as the blog mentions.

One thing also worth emphasizing, it dosn't sound like joining a settlement removes you from the chartered company. Rather the chartered company becomes a part of a settlement. From the sounds of Ryan's posts it seems that settlements will be inviting/sponsering charters, not individuals. IMO I love this concept as that basically grants people the perks of having a smaller more personal small guild chat (chartered company), then a larger but less personal settlement chat, then finally the huge nation chat. This somewhat eliminates some issues people like myself have, as I love being in small guilds where you are close to everyone, know a bit about everyone there, but also really like being part of huge raids, sieges etc... This largely brings out the best of both worlds

Goblinworks Executive Founder

From the end of the discussion of Chartered companies:

Blog wrote:
More complex organizations will be implemented through similar charters, with similar procedures and a similar user interface.

To me, that says that there will be chartered organizations not currently enumerated, or relationships between chartered companies that haven't been fully described yet.

A large band of mercenaries who travel the region working for the highest bidder wouldn't build a settlement, but would travel and lease or extort the use of training facilities in the area they were working at any given point in time. A confederation of caravans would not have a single leader, but would track their members and again, would not have a settlement, even though each caravan would hold a charter issued by a settlement. Clearly, the politics needs to be complicated and intersectional, not hierarchical.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

From the end of the discussion of Chartered companies:

Blog wrote:
More complex organizations will be implemented through similar charters, with similar procedures and a similar user interface.
To me, that says that there will be chartered organizations not currently enumerated, or relationships between chartered companies that haven't been fully described yet.

To me that says we can use the mechanics already described to make any number of possible complex structures. I guess we will see.

DeciusBrutus wrote:
A large band of mercenaries who travel the region working for the highest bidder wouldn't build a settlement, but would travel and lease or extort the use of training facilities in the area they were working at any given point in time.

Actually, Ryan already stated he wants to minimize this in his "guilds should be about hexes, not wandering through hexes" comment (that quote is not anywhere near verbatim btw, but I think I got the gist right).

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

From the end of the discussion of Chartered companies:

Blog wrote:
More complex organizations will be implemented through similar charters, with similar procedures and a similar user interface.
To me, that says that there will be chartered organizations not currently enumerated, or relationships between chartered companies that haven't been fully described yet.

To me that says we can use the mechanics already described to make any number of possible complex structures. I guess we will see.

DeciusBrutus wrote:
A large band of mercenaries who travel the region working for the highest bidder wouldn't build a settlement, but would travel and lease or extort the use of training facilities in the area they were working at any given point in time.
Actually, Ryan already stated he wants to minimize this in his "guilds should be about hexes, not wandering through hexes" comment (that quote is not anywhere near verbatim btw, but I think I got the gist right).

Yeah from the sounds of it, it dosn't sound like just swapping your sponsorship to your current employer is going to be a plausible action for a mercinary company. It sounds like mercenary companies worth their salt will most probably have their own settlement, even when working across the map. From the sounds of it swapping your sponsorship will not be an easy task under any circumstance. That and settlements themselves will not often be too keen on staking their reputation on a mercinary group, and a mercenary group would most likely not want their training staked on whatever the current employer is. (Time between contracts = being barred from training the more advanced skills, I don't see that as a great idea).

Goblin Squad Member

The way I understood it...and would like confirmation on, is that we keep saying things like "guilds will own their own settlement". We say it like that because it is intuitive in light of how the RL works, but actually settlements essentially define the community of players that have a stake in it. So, guild G of 50 players does not really exist in any in-game officially recognized capacity until they have a settlement...then they are defined as residents of settlement G.

@Onishi, agreed...I read that CC who are sponsored by a Settlement, for all intents and purposes become part of the Settlement. And that illustrates and important distinction...whereas in traditional games, guilds often have application processes to keep their communities clean, in PFO the Settlements (or nations/kingdoms on a larger scale) define a community (exactly how a guild would in another game). As such, allowing people to "settle" in your settlement is exactly analogous to allowing them into your guild...and prudent Settlements will have either an application process or decent firewalls between sensitive areas and the general residents/guild members.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

From the end of the discussion of Chartered companies:

Blog wrote:
More complex organizations will be implemented through similar charters, with similar procedures and a similar user interface.
To me, that says that there will be chartered organizations not currently enumerated, or relationships between chartered companies that haven't been fully described yet.

I read that as a simple preamble to the discussion of Settlements and Player Nations that followed that quote, and that Settlements and Player Nations were the "more complex organizations".

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
But, Chartered Companies will not be able to own/claim land or buildings and will be limited size-wise to about 25.

You could build a Hideout, an Inn, a Watchtower or a Fort.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
(but most buildings will likely have to be built within a settlement).

A bit of expectation setting:

A Settlement likely will not represent a 3D space that you walk around in. They may be a monolithic object in game that you "enter" by walking up to a portal and clicking a UI element. You'll then be switched to a view of services and NPCs similar to what you see when you enter a station in EVE.

Adding a building to a Settlement will add a resource to this interface.

Of course we want to evolve this so that in time Settlements are 3D spaces just like the world around them, and buildings will have interiors, and you'll be able to see the avatars of the other people who are in that space. But it is not likely we'll have that kind of functionality ready in the beginning.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
The way I understood it...and would like confirmation on, is that we keep saying things like "guilds will own their own settlement". We say it like that because it is intuitive in light of how the RL works, but actually settlements essentially define the community of players that have a stake in it. So, guild G of 50 players does not really exist in any in-game officially recognized capacity until they have a settlement...then they are defined as residents of settlement G.

They could have an in-game existence as a Chartered Company. That Chartered Company could own a Hideout, an Inn, a Watchtower or a Fort.

Quote:
As such, allowing people to "settle" in your settlement is exactly analogous to allowing them into your guild...

Not even remotely accurate.

A Settlement is both a place, and a social organization.

As a place, it could be visited (or lived in) by many characters who share no social affiliation. Those characters could include Chartered Companies from that Settlement - or from some other Settlement.

Merely being present at a Settlement doesn't grant one access to the social organization.

The social organization has shared resources - accounts, storage, information (stuff that appears on maps, for example). Merely being present at a Settlement doesn't give you access to any of that stuff.

Chartering a Company implies that your social organization is vouching for the Chartered Company, but it does not meld that Company into your Settlement organization. It means that if the Chartered Company goes off and does something that reflects badly on your Settlement, you may be asked to account for their actions, and you may be expected to discipline them.

If a Chartered Company is at your Settlement but you are not the issuer of their Charter, nothing they do reflects on you - other than the pressure you may feel for tolerating their presence in territory you control. If you don't like them hanging out in your space, tell them to leave and if they don't go, drive them out with violence.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Merely being present at a Settlement doesn't grant one access to the social organization.

The social organization has shared resources - accounts, storage, information (stuff that appears on maps, for example). Merely being present at a Settlement doesn't give you access to any of that stuff.

Will there be some in-game object equivalent to a "Guild" such that the players running a Settlement can allow all members of that "Guild" to have access to all the Settlement resources, but deny that access to non-member Residents? Or will that simply be a Group/Role defined for the Settlement, and each new Resident would either be placed in the "Member" Group/Role or the "Non-Member" Group/Role?

Asked another way, will there be some in-game named entity that two separate Settlements could reference when granting permissions? Or would that entity have to be named at each Settlement, and membership managed at each Settlement?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Merely being present at a Settlement doesn't grant one access to the social organization.

The social organization has shared resources - accounts, storage, information (stuff that appears on maps, for example). Merely being present at a Settlement doesn't give you access to any of that stuff.

Will there be some in-game object equivalent to a "Guild" such that the players running a Settlement can allow all members of that "Guild" to have access to all the Settlement resources, but deny that access to non-member Residents? Or will that simply be a Group/Role defined for the Settlement, and each new Resident would either be placed in the "Member" Group/Role or the "Non-Member" Group/Role?

Asked another way, will there be some in-game named entity that two separate Settlements could reference when granting permissions? Or would that entity have to be named at each Settlement, and membership managed at each Settlement?

Is a "Resident" necessarily a citizen in your example? My understanding of Ryan's post is that residency does not automatically grant citizenship, and it is citizenship that grants access to resources. If you want to further restrict access, I guess you could set up an oligarchy-style voting system or something. In terms of cross-settlement privileges, it sounds to me like you're going to need both settlements to be in the same Nation for that.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Onishi wrote:
(but most buildings will likely have to be built within a settlement).

A bit of expectation setting:

A Settlement likely will not represent a 3D space that you walk around in. They may be a monolithic object in game that you "enter" by walking up to a portal and clicking a UI element. You'll then be switched to a view of services and NPCs similar to what you see when you enter a station in EVE.

Adding a building to a Settlement will add a resource to this interface.

Of course we want to evolve this so that in time Settlements are 3D spaces just like the world around them, and buildings will have interiors, and you'll be able to see the avatars of the other people who are in that space. But it is not likely we'll have that kind of functionality ready in the beginning.

So let me see if I can understand the initial setup...

Settlements will initialy be monolithic objects. Does that mean that all player interaction will occur out in the wilderness/dungeons....or will you build some initial 3D social spaces for the players to interact...will you have a few "well known" Inns/Landmarks built out as physical locations but "Settlements" in general represented as objects to be built out at a latter date?

The reason I ask is that in the EvE setting the setup kinda makes sense....players are essentialy represented as spaceships...and are essentialy LIVING inside spaceships...most interaction is going to be remote communication anyway. I'd think it'd be a little jarring for players used to a classic Fantasy setting instead...as you are represented by individual human beings/elves/orcs, etc. Most human interaction in such a setting is expected to occur face to face within human contructed buildings, etc. It'd be pretty jarring for folks used to that sort of world setting not to have access to an "adventurers tavern" to visit, etc.

Second question, in terms of the more practical combat/territory control aspects of settlements. In terms of capturing/conquering settlements, etc....from what I think players would naturaly expect when thinking about capturing settlements/territory would probably be some form of siege warfare/scaling the walls/castle assualts etc? If settlements are initialy monolithic objects does that mean that defending them essentialy becomes a field battle out in the landscape around the object...or will we be able to expect some structures/fortifications (Defensive Walls, Battlement, Tower) placed out in the 3D landscape around them to represent that aspect of play...even if the settlement itself isn't a fully rendered space?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Forencith wrote:
But, Chartered Companies will not be able to own/claim land or buildings and will be limited size-wise to about 25.

You could build a Hideout, an Inn, a Watchtower or a Fort.

RyanD

Wait, so you are confirming that a Chartered Company “cannot” start up their own settlement? I thought all it took was 10 people to start a settlement?

Why can they only build watchtowers, inns or forts/hideouts?

Also, I know you said you want large organizations settling in hexes and not just running around in them, but I think any large organization (guild) is going to try to start up their own settlement, anyways. I don’t see any reason to limit a chartered company (which sounds like the closest equivalent to a guild in this game) on size.

However, I have a question on a certain situation. The chartered company first gets their sponsorship from an NPC settlement and then decides to start up their own settlement (chooses 10 people out of the company).

The settlement grows, to several hundred people, a majority of them part of the guild. Although of course the guild organization is outside of the game, as the game will not allow over 25. But as we have a settlement, it’s ok, as we can have in-game mechanics to organize our settlement (guild).

But then the settlement is attacked and destroyed. Now we are back to our 25 chartered company with a bunch of players who are in our guild (outside the game), but aren’t in-game, as the game mechanics do not support it.

Sure, you can say “Well, you are still one guild out of the game, as long as you know that in-game, that’s all that matters.” Well, sorry, but part of the enjoyment for the game is having the mechanics ‘in-game’ as well. I want to be known I am part of ‘x’ guild (chartered company) in-game, all 100+ of us.

Of course we all know we are part of the same guild outside of the game, but for me, it is part of the fun, and being immersive in the game recognizing we are all one as well.

Even with the reason you gave, I still don’t understand why we can’t have large guilds (chartered companies).


You create a settlement from a fort. Therefore, a Chartered Company could feasibly create a settlement but they might find it difficult to hold.

Goblin Squad Member

From the impressions I read, I am sorry if I am incorrect, but I did not think settlements were created from anything. They are going to be their own entities.

I know you could build forts, taverns, hideouts, but you can build multiple of those in a hex, where you can have only one settlement in a hex.

Goblin Squad Member

Hobbun wrote:
From the impressions I read, I am sorry if I am incorrect, but I did not think settlements was created from anything. It was just what it was, a ‘settlement’.

From Put It in Writing:

Quote:
Once the settlement charter has been created, a minimum of 10 characters must sign it. The settlement must begin with a fortress in a wilderness area; if any other parties have a fortress in the chosen hex, it will need to be destroyed. Once the party has successfully defended their own fortress for a specified amount of time (variable depending on factors affecting the hex), a fortress in the hex must be upgraded to a settlement building; this act formally establishes the settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Ahh, ok. Thank you Nihimon.

I actually do like that, then just getting 10 people together and saying 'here's a settlement'. It is more realistic this way.

Although can't say I am real happy about the monolithic object representing a settlement, as I want to be able to see it grow and run around and interact with other players and the structures.

I understand it is less stressing on running the game (in the same we won't see NPCs), but PvE MMO's have open, 3D towns, I don't see why PFO cannot do the same.

However, Ryan did say they wanted to evolve to 3D environments over time, so hopefully it is sooner than later.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Hobbun wrote:
From the impressions I read, I am sorry if I am incorrect, but I did not think settlements was created from anything. It was just what it was, a ‘settlement’.

From Put It in Writing:

Quote:
Once the settlement charter has been created, a minimum of 10 characters must sign it. The settlement must begin with a fortress in a wilderness area; if any other parties have a fortress in the chosen hex, it will need to be destroyed. Once the party has successfully defended their own fortress for a specified amount of time (variable depending on factors affecting the hex), a fortress in the hex must be upgraded to a settlement building; this act formally establishes the settlement.

Which has me a bit confused. The Fortress must be OWNED by some organization first...yet the Settlements Organization doesn't exist until they sign the charter.

Does this effectively mean that you have "Settlements" (social organization represented by the Charter) which effectively have no Settlement (game object/territory in a hex) for extended periods of time while they...
- Locate a suitable hex.
- Clear it of threats
- Establish the buildings (Watchtower -> Fort -> Fortress) neccesary to create the settlement
- Eliminate rival buildings that interfere with thier claim.

If not...then I'm unclear on how you get from A to B. If so, then you do effectively have social organizations of unlimited size which don't neccesarly have territorial ties....which may eliminate some of the concerns we've had.

If not...then I'm a bit unclear what exactly happens. Does the organization owning the fortress (I'm assuming what a Chartered Company or a pre-existing settlement) transfer ownership of it to the "Settlement" (organization represented by the Settlement Charter) in order to turn it into a "Settlement" (building/object)?

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps the idea of a guild doesn't map to any proposed structure in PFO. Just brainstorming a little here... Seems to me the existing paradigm for Guilds is as comprehensive and inclusive as possible, attempting to work as an independent unit. Every role, every crafting niche, and as such not beholden to any other guild for its accomplishments. While I'm sure this approach will be attempted with Chartered Companies, and will work ok, I can't imagine it will be as remotely successful as a Chart.Co. that is dedicated and specialized. An Adventuring Co. will be very good at going out into the wild, discovering and ransacking dungeons, a Mining/Lumber Co. will be very good at setting up and managing those operations, and a full blown Merc Co. will be ideal to wage large scale PvP conflicts. Where this comes together is at the settlement level. A successful settlement will need to have access to all of these types of Companies (perhaps even more types as well), and the Companies will benefit from having consistent and trusted partners to deal with. These companies will work together to protect this establishment, and perhaps ultimately this is the seedform for a nation.
At the smallest level of Organization, the Chartered Co, communications between individuals is pretty easy if its only between about 20 individuals. At any given time (assuming 100% online), only about 1/3 of those individuals will be making comments in a chat style, most will be out and about and concentrating on the tasks of playing the game. Much larger than that, the circumstances of it all makes for a bunch of somewhat disconnected conversations at odds with each other. At a Settlement level i can expect it being primarily either A) people hawking wares, or B) public declarations of devotion to the Cult of Norris. Either way there isn't really a lot of space for true human communication in a channel of people greater than about 30 people. This, and the onerous nature of typing to communicate, is why many people have gravitated to teamspeak/ventrilo/etc. for both social and mission critical communications. I think this sort of detail is really the key to why Chartered Companies will have a limited size, either hardcoded or practical.

Goblin Squad Member

In response to the chicken/egg conundrum, Chartered Companies (I think! total speculation here) will be able to form themselves based off the initial 3 NPC Settlements, and then once the threshold has been reached of settlement creation happens, transfer their affiliation. Just speculation, but seems like a reasonable approach.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:


At the smallest level of Organization, the Chartered Co, communications between individuals is pretty easy if its only between about 20 individuals. At any given time (assuming 100% online), only about 1/3 of those individuals will be making comments in a chat style, most will be out and about and concentrating on the tasks of playing the game. Much larger than that, the circumstances of it all makes for a bunch of somewhat disconnected conversations at odds with each other. At a Settlement level i can expect it being primarily either A) people hawking wares, or B) public declarations of devotion to the Cult of Norris. Either way there isn't really a lot of space for true human communication in a channel of people greater than about 30 people. This, and the onerous nature of typing to communicate, is why many people have gravitated to...

LOTRO had a pretty effective chat system in this regard. There were various different built-in channels...Global/Regional/Local/Fellowship, etc. A player could turn these on or off or filter them as desired.

In addition to these, you could create your own channels...which were entities unto themselves... I think you could subscribe to upto 5 at one time...basicaly one person created the channel by giving it a name and a password...and any other player regardless of affiliation could join that channel if they had the right credentials. Was pretty effective.

Thus if you wanted a channel seperate from that of your Guild just for the Guild Officers...you could create one and give the appropriate people access....if you wanted one for the full membership of 4 different guild that were in an informal alliance...you could do that too.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
...stuff...

Indeed, this sort of thing should be a no-brainer. As universally panned as WoW is, the chat function is rock solid, and has all the features described, and probably more.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Will chartered companies be able to form associations and contracts/treaties with each other?

What advantages are conferred by settlements, and how much control does the government of the settlement have over who gets those benefits?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:


Will there be some in-game object equivalent to a "Guild" such that the players running a Settlement can allow all members of that "Guild" to have access to all the Settlement resources, but deny that access to non-member Residents?

You lost me. That's exactly how it works.

Characters in a Settlement social organization: Access

Characters not in the Settlement social organization (regardless of their physical whereabouts): No access.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Settlements will initialy be monolithic objects. Does that mean that all player interaction will occur out in the wilderness/dungeons....

Will you be able to see your 3D avatar walk up to another 3D avatar and emote and speech bubble at them in a Settlement? Probably not at first but certainly that's the long term development goal.

Will you be able to see some representation of your character and other characters and NPCs who are in a Settlement when you are in a Settlement? Yes. Could there be logical groupings that map to non-visible physical spaces (like buildings in the Settlement)? Yes.

Will you be able to communicate in some manner with characters and NPCs in Settlements? Yes.

Will you be able to exchanges goods and Coin with characters and NPCs in Settlements? Yes.

Quote:
Will you build some initial 3D social spaces for the players to interact...

It will be entirely determined by how well our software renders large groups of characters in small spaces across a wide variety of client hardware. I am very hopeful that at least Inns will have shared 3D virtual spaces very close to launch (if not at launch).

Quote:
will you have a few "well known" Inns/Landmarks built out as physical locations but "Settlements" in general represented as objects to be built out at a latter date?

I don't understand this question.

Goblin Squad Member

Hobbun wrote:
Wait, so you are confirming that a Chartered Company “cannot” start up their own settlement? I thought all it took was 10 people to start a settlement?

I can't tell if you're baiting me by purposefully misstating what we've communicated or if you're just not able to follow the logic.

A Chartered Company is just a logical code wrapper around a human social structure. The characters in a Chartered Company can do anything characters not in a Chartered Company can do.

A Chartered Company with at least 10 members want to clear a Hex of Forts owned by someone other than themselves, build a Fort they own, agree to a Charter, and advance the Fort to a Settlement, they can. Just like any other group of characters.

Quote:
I don’t see any reason to limit a chartered company (which sounds like the closest equivalent to a guild in this game) on size.

Yes, you've expressed that opinion several times. I'm going to stop responding to you when you do because you know what our plans are.

Quote:
The settlement grows, to several hundred people, a majority of them part of the guild. Although of course the guild organization is outside of the game, as the game will not allow over 25. But as we have a settlement, it’s ok, as we can have in-game mechanics to organize our settlement (guild).

You keep trying to draw some kind of artificial line between Charted Companies and Settlements.

You have a Settlement. Put several hundred people in it. Why are you worried about who is a member of the Chartered Company that pre-dated the Settlement?

Quote:
But then the settlement is attacked and destroyed. Now we are back to our 25 chartered company with a bunch of players who are in our guild (outside the game), but aren’t in-game, as the game mechanics do not support it.

The basic design is that if you don't re-establish your Settlement building in a limited amount of time the Settlement is dissolved. There are a few issues about handling what happens to buildings not in the Settlement that are still standing (and any shared storage that may be in those buildings), but I'm not worrying about those mechanics at this time.

Keeping cohesion for your people is your problem. I expect any reasonably cohesive group will have a multitude of in-game and out-of-game comms and the ability to organize itself as needed in-game to do whatever it thinks it can do after the loss of Settlement status.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

You lost me. That's exactly how it works.

Characters in a Settlement social organization: Access

Characters not in the Settlement social organization (regardless of their physical whereabouts): No access.

Sorry for the confusion.

If I'm a member of the out-of-game Community named "The Seventh Veil", and we collectively establish two Settlements, will it be possible to differentiate in-game between residents of our Settlements that are members of The Seventh Veil and those that aren't.

Or is it the case that residence in a Settlement automatically makes you a "member" of that "Settlement social organization", with no other distinctions supported?

Perhaps a better way to ask the question is: Will it be possible to have an Account that belongs to the out-of-game organization "The Seventh Veil" without that Account being tied to a single Player, Chartered Company, Settlement, or Player Nation?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Quote:
will you have a few "well known" Inns/Landmarks built out as physical locations but "Settlements" in general represented as objects to be built out at a latter date?

I don't understand this question.

I think what he is trying to say is... Will there be 3D Inns/Landmarks that are availiable to be in and interact with, as opposed to

Quote:
A Settlement likely will not represent a 3D space that you walk around in. They may be a monolithic object in game that you "enter" by walking up to a portal and clicking a UI element. You'll then be switched to a view of services and NPCs similar to what you see when you enter a station in EVE.

Goblin Squad Member

Or perhaps an even better way to ask the question is:

Will it be possible to be a "resident of a Settlement" without being in that Settlement social organization? Or does being a "resident" mean that you're part of the Settlement social organization?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Will chartered companies be able to form associations and contracts/treaties with each other?

They'll be able to issue and take various kinds of contracts. So far we haven't done any design on a treaty system. The only social network association concepts currently in the design doc is the relationship between a Chartered Company and a Settlement, and between two or more Settlements.

Quote:
What advantages are conferred by settlements, and how much control does the government of the settlement have over who gets those benefits?

1: You get shared storage

2: You get shared relationship standings

3: You get shared accounts

4: You can assess an automatic tax on membership

5: You can decide how to develop the infrastructure of your Settlement (what buildings to construct within it, and which advancements to those buildings you choose to perform)

5A: Certain skills will require you to be a member of a Settlement that has access to certain kinds of buildings or certain advancements of those buildings. NPC Settlements will not have all buildings or all advancements. Therefore, depending on how you want your character to develop you will likely need to be a member of a Settlement that has the infrastructure to facilitate the training you wish to undertake.

5B: Certain processing and crafting jobs will require you to have access to certain kinds of buildings or certain advancements of those buildings. NPC Settlements will not have all buildings or all advancements. Therefore, depending on what you want to process or craft you will likely need to be a member of a Settlement that has the infrastructure to engage in the activities you wish to pursue.

6: You will be able to share information on your maps which will facilitate Fast Travel

7: Settlement Membership is a prerequisite for Player Nation membership.

8: There may be (and over time will be more likely to be as we continue to iterate) some kind of visual effects associated with your Settlement membership which you may (optionally) display, like a cloak, tabard, standard, or other device or insignia.

9: There will be dedicated comms channels for use by members of Settlements, including numerous sub-channels and channel customization options.

10: You will receive notifications of events which are meaningful to your Settlement via email or SMS (depending on how you have configured settings).

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

... you will likely need to be a member of a Settlement that has the infrastructure to facilitate the training you wish to undertake.

... you will likely need to be a member of a Settlement that has the infrastructure to engage in the activities you wish to pursue.

Do you foresee the problem arising where a single character is trying to accomplish diverse enough goals that there is no Settlement with all the buildings/advancements they need? Will it be possible to be a member of more than one Settlement?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Sorry for the confusion.

I'm sorry I can't seem to communicate this effectively. :(

Quote:
If I'm a member of the out-of-game Community named "The Seventh Veil", and we collectively establish two Settlements, will it be possible to differentiate in-game between residents of our Settlements that are members of The Seventh Veil and those that aren't.

I have prepared this Venn Diagram to help..

The light grey circle is a physical structure called a Settlement. It is named "The Seventh Veil".

Within it are characters who are members of a social structure also called "The Seventh Veil".

There are also characters within it who are not members of the Seventh Veil.

Sometimes, the members of the Seventh Veil go outside the Settlement. No matter where they go, they are always members of the Seventh Veil social structure.

No matter if the non-members are inside the physical structure or not, they are never members of the Seventh Veil social structure.

Think of it like a fraternity. They have a building with their name on it. And they have a social structure that represents people who have membership in that fraternity.

A person's physical location has no bearing on their rights or privileges with respect to the fraternity. That persons membership in the social organization determines those rights.

Quote:
Will it be possible to have an Account that belongs to the out-of-game organization "The Seventh Veil" without that Account being tied to a single Player, Chartered Company, Settlement, or Player Nation?

No.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:


Do you foresee the problem arising where a single character is trying to accomplish diverse enough goals that there is no Settlement with all the buildings/advancements they need?

I don't see that as a problem, I see that as a feature.

Quote:
Will it be possible to be a member of more than one Settlement?

No, but you could be a member of a Player Nation that had Settlements with all the infrastructure you require.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
I have prepared this Venn Diagram to help..

That helps a lot, but there's one minor piece that's still not clear.

Here's my Venn Diagram

The Grey circles are Settlements. The Green circles are the Settlement social organizations (fraternities). The Orange circles are the non-member residents. The Blue circle is the out-of-game community "The Seventh Veil".

Will it be possible to automatically include all members of the Blue circle in the Green circles when they move from one Settlement to another? Or will we have to explicitly include them in the Green circle when they move to a new Settlement?

Will there be any in-game social construct that can exactly map to the Blue circle?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I have prepared this Venn Diagram to help..

That helps a lot, but there's one minor piece that's still not clear.

Here's my Venn Diagram

The Grey circles are Settlements. The Green circles are the Settlement social organizations (fraternities). The Orange circles are the non-member residents. The Blue circle is the out-of-game community "The Seventh Veil".

Will it be possible to automatically include all members of the Blue circle in the Green circles when they move from one Settlement to another? Or will we have to explicitly include them in the Green circle when they move to a new Settlement?

Will there be any in-game social construct that can exactly map to the Blue circle?

I could be misunderstanding, but at this point dosn't it become a kingdom if you chose to have both settlements?

Goblin Squad Member

@Onishi, as I understand it, a Player Nation would consist of both Green circles. I'm specifically asking about the Blue circle.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:


I can't tell if you're baiting me by purposefully misstating what we've communicated or if you're just not able to follow the logic.

Ryan, by no means was I trying to bait you in any sense. I had originally misunderstood. I was responding off the current posts I had seen in the thread:

Forcenith wrote:


But, Chartered Companies will not be able to own/claim land or buildings and will be limited size-wise to about 25.

Your response:

Ryan Dancey wrote:


You could build a Hideout, an Inn, a Watchtower or a Fort.

From my original interpretation in reading those posts, since you has specified that chartered companies could build a Hideout, an Inn, a Watchertower or a Fort, I took it they could 'not' build or own the rest.

However, Lictor (followed by Nihimon with a quote) was graciously able to clarify to me soon afterwards that you need to upgrade to a settlement from a fort.

So please, however frustrated I may sound in regards to something, I would never come here to bait or antagonize anyone, especially yourself. My apologies if it came across that way.

Quote:
I don’t see any reason to limit a chartered company (which sounds like the closest equivalent to a guild in this game) on size.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Yes, you've expressed that opinion several times. I'm going to stop responding to you when you do because you know what our plans are.

Mainly I keep expressing it because I am a bit concerned with the decision and have not heard (or understood) a good reason why a chartered company has to be limited to ~24 members.

And I'm not saying this in any way to bait you, I truly just don't understand the reason why. But you have made it clear the decision seems to be pretty much final, so I won't bring it up to you again.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

You keep trying to draw some kind of artificial line between Charted Companies and Settlements.

You have a Settlement. Put several hundred people in it. Why are you worried about who is a member of the Chartered Company that pre-dated the Settlement?

The reason being is CC's are forever, or forever in the sense the members choose to keep it together as long as they want with no bearing on what anyone else does. Where settlements can destroyed outside of your control (you fail in defending it).

What I would like is an in-game mechanic recognizing your organization even if your settlement falls, at least until you are able to re-establish a settlement. I really don't know how long it actually takes to do so. I had thought CC would fill that role, but due to the small limit on the number of members, that will not work.

Yes, you are still a 'guild' outside of the game, with out of game communication, but I don't feel that is something an organization should be required to have to keep together in-game. I feel there should be in-game mechanics to support it, as well. I also feel our political structure and organization for all of our members should remain intact in-game, as well.

Besides the fact, as I said earlier on, continuing to be recoginized in-game as an organization makes it more fun and immersive for me.

Goblin Squad Member

How's this for a possible analogy:

A settlement is like a corporation, with chartered companies being analogous to the departments within that corp. Instead of a single monolithic guild that has a host of individual specialists.

Obviously there are some pretty significant differences, but i thought maybe that might help with the understanding of the hierarchy.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Will any one individual be able to have training privileges simultaneously in two different settlements? Will settlements be able to sell/lease/grant access to their training and crafting structures to arbitrary people, or will there be restrictions on who can use those buildings?

Will the leaders of a settlement be able to exercise fine control over who can use the shared storage features, such as limits on how much an individual may remove from shared storage? Will warehouse space be able to be leased to people not associated with the settlement (for example, to a group who intends to take advantage of market fluctuations and arbitrage, and so wants warehouse space in many different settlements)?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:


I have prepared this Venn Diagram to help..

The light grey circle is a physical structure called a Settlement. It is named "The Seventh Veil".

Within it are characters who are members of a social structure also called "The Seventh Veil".

There are also characters within it who are not members of the Seventh Veil.

Quote:
Will it be possible to have an Account that belongs to the out-of-game organization "The Seventh Veil" without that Account being tied to a single Player, Chartered Company, Settlement, or Player Nation?
No.

Thank you for ll your help clarifying this Ryan, I might have expressed myself poorly but what you are suggesting seems to be in-line with my initial understanding...so I think you expressed yourself well. As a final clarifying question...in the Venn Diagram you provided, specifically concerning the "characters within it who are not members of the Seventh Veil":

1. As "residents" of the Settlement named "The Seventh Veil", does the social structure "The Seventh Veil" have the power to dictate their measure of participation in governance?

2. Does the social structure "The Seventh Veil" have the ability to cancel their "residence", forcefully remove, and/or prevent them from re-entering?

3. What do you see as their purpose? My understanding so far is that these people would be similar to visitors and renters at a station in EVE. Able to give and take contracts and such, and even buy/rent a virtual building...if the social structure "The Seventh Veil" allows it. Additionally, they would be welcome to use any buildings the social structure "The Seventh Veil" has declared open for "public" use (probably at a small fee, like EVE). Does this sound right?

Finally, if the Settlement named "The Seventh Veil" is destroyed, the social structure "The Seventh Veil" will be left without any in-game mechanics to stay organized as an in-game social unit, is this correct? (Of course I understand we are still welcome to use out of game means such as forums.)

Thanks again!

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:


You could build a Hideout, an Inn, a Watchtower or a Fort.

RyanD

2 quick questions:

1. Will Chartered Companies be able to, for instance, build an Inn and later build a fort around it to form a settlement at that location?

2. Have more than one of these structures at a given time?

Goblin Squad Member

Gregg Reece wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:


You could build a Hideout, an Inn, a Watchtower or a Fort.

RyanD

2 quick questions:

1. Will Chartered Companies be able to, for instance, build an Inn and later build a fort around it to form a settlement at that location?

2. Have more than one of these structures at a given time?

From what I can gather, I don't think an inn goes inside of a settlement or fort. There are locations at hexes that are suitable for building things, IE you can't chose where to build a fort, there is usually (emphasis on usually, there are obviously exceptions since it mentions needing to destroy any other fort if present to upgrade to a settlement) only one place on a hex that a fort can be built and at least from my understanding an inn is not in that area. I believe a settlement will likely have it's own housing, and possibly it's own internal equivelant of an inn, The main concept and description of an inn itself is a standalone building designed to grant shelter, safe logging out, and community outside of the walls of civilization.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
@Onishi, as I understand it, a Player Nation would consist of both Green circles. I'm specifically asking about the Blue circle.

I'm going to reattempt the frat analogy that Mr Dancey started.

You've got a frat house at the university. You have non-frat people in your frat house all of the time visiting and such, but that doesn't mean they are in the frat. So, someone can live in your settlement without being a [u]member[/u] of it.

As far as the second settlement goes, player nations. And until they go in, private chat channels and a good website to keep your settlements in sync.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Will there be any in-game social construct that can exactly map to the Blue circle?

Not as drawn. If the blue circle fully included the two gray circles than kind of, that's what a Player Nation is. But there will never be two gray circles (that is two physical Settlements shared by the same Settlement social entity).

You'd have 7th Veil A and 7th Veil B and The Player Nation of the 7th Veil would encompass both. People in A would not be in B, but both people in A and B would be in the Player Nation.

Some people are members of the Delta Delta Delta chapter at the University of Washington. Some people are members of the Delta Delta Delta chapter at Washington State University. All of them are members of the National Association of Delta Delta Delta.

When the members from the UW chapter go to WSU, they are guests in someone else's house. And vice versa.

There is no physical chapter house owned by the National Association, but they do own an awesome bar in Vegas.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks, Ryan. Sorry if this feels like a cross-examination :)

Can there be more than one Settlement Social Organization in a given Settlement? Or is there only one, which is effectively the "owner" of the Settlement?

By the way, I really don't mind that there's not an exact map for my Blue circle. I think a lot of people just intuitively expected there would be, since there is in most other MMOs. But I actually think the system you're creating is really cool.

I'm really curious about how a player would need to move around in order to gain access to the special buildings and advancements they'll need to do the specialized training/processing/crafting they want to do. Specifically, will it be possible to remain a resident of a relatively minor lone Settlement and still utilize the facilities of the uber-Kingdom as long as the "owners" of the uber-Kingdom allow it?

201 to 250 of 381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.