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

Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing


Pathfinder Online

251 to 300 of 381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Can there be more than one Settlement Social Organization in a given Settlement?

No.

Quote:
Or is there only one, which is effectively the "owner" of the Settlement?

Yes.

Quote:
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?

Probably.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Is there going to be some way to have a tri-delta association, where individual chapters own parts of different settlements?

Can we have a settlement that disenfranchises it's members (members have no vote within the settlement) be part of a nation with universal citizenship (membership in the settlement grants a vote in national matters)?

Can a player nation develop more than one class of resident? Can the lowest class of resident be treated no better than random nonmembers?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Is there going to be some way to have a tri-delta association, where individual chapters own parts of different settlements?

Each physical Settlement is owned by one social Settlement. So I think the answer to your question is no if I understand the question correctly. There will be no "partial ownership" rights.

Quote:
Can we have a settlement that disenfranchises it's members (members have no vote within the settlement) be part of a nation with universal citizenship (membership in the settlement grants a vote in national matters)?

Someone always has a vote in a Settlement. But you could make it a single character. So mostly Yes. This would be quite dangerous.

Quote:
Can a player nation develop more than one class of resident? Can the lowest class of resident be treated no better than random nonmembers?

You could use the voting system to create two classes of member - voting and non-voting, but beyond that, we haven't planned for anything that complex.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

At what point in the character's life would one feel they HAVE TO become part of a guild? The reason I ask is that you will have a large group of casual players, and unless the guild is shooting for numbers only, that player may find themselves in a delema of 'Picking a house or else' situation.

As a developer/programmer in 'real life' my play time is naturally limited. Wondering if my lack of consistent playtime will proverbially bite me in the ace.

Thoughts?

Goblin Squad Member

@SaintMac, one key thing to remember is that "guilds" in PFO probably won't have the same incentives to limit membership the way they do in most Theme Parks, where they generally only want enough members to be able to consistently field the right sized group for whatever content (raid, arena pop, etc) they like to run.

I would imagine most "Guilds" in PFO will generally have the attitude of "the more, the merrier".

Of course, Ryan's "probably" above means there's a decent chance you'll never need to formally join a Settlement or Player Nation Social Organization, just as long as you can convince them to let you make use of their facilities.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@SaintMac, one key thing to remember is that "guilds" in PFO probably won't have the same incentives to limit membership the way they do in most Theme Parks, where they generally only want enough members to be able to consistently field the right sized group for whatever content (raid, arena pop, etc) they like to run.

I would imagine most "Guilds" in PFO will generally have the attitude of "the more, the merrier".

Of course, Ryan's "probably" above means there's a decent chance you'll never need to formally join a Settlement or Player Nation Social Organization, just as long as you can convince them to let you make use of their facilities.

Seconded, Someone who happens to show up and help defend 1 in 10 wars, is better than not having anyone. Unless guilds have a limited cap of members there is no motivation to kick "unactive" members.

Not to mention with the current leveling system, you wouldn't even be behind "level" wise, as your skills will go up over real time, so as long as you are paying your subscription, you will keep up with the current players.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan, I think I understand what you're doing with Settlement social organizations. Will there be a similar structure for Player Nations? Or will those always consist of the entire population of their constituent Settlements?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
For the record, I would prefer a system where individual Alignments could be explicitly Required, Allowed, or Forbidden.

I agree. Any of the social institutions should be able to be as restrictive or lax as they want.

A generally Lawful settlement may want to sponsor a guild of mercs or assassins for protection that are not close to being lawful. Plenty of real world examples to support this.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

My concern about changing Sponsors is based entirely on my desire to see The Seventh Veil as a Chartered Company as soon as possible, which likely means we'll have to accept the sponsorship of one of the three NPC Settlements. Once we establish our own Settlement, it would be nice if we could switch to being, effectively, self-sponsored. It may be utterly meaningless, but it would be a matter of pride.

Alternately, will it be possible to form a Settlement early on and sponsor a Chartered Company before the Settlement is "formally established" by upgrading a Fort to a Settlement?

Well the blog states that a settlement can cancel the sponsorship of a guild so there must be a grace period to find a new sponsor otherwise your guild would be disbanded.

This leads me to believe there would be a system to change your own sponsorship.

Goblin Squad Member

Rafkin wrote:

Well the blog states that a settlement can cancel the sponsorship of a guild so there must be a grace period to find a new sponsor otherwise your guild would be disbanded.

This leads me to believe there would be a system to change your own sponsorship.

Yeah, Ryan has said that you could change sponsorships and that if you got your sponsorship revoked, you'd have a grace period to change sponsors before the group gets dissolved.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Rafkin, yeah, Ryan already answered that one pretty directly :)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
@Rafkin, yeah, Ryan already answered that one pretty directly :)

I see. I knew I should have read the whole thread before replying.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm still trying to figure out how you get a settlement established. It's a bit confusing..

- In order to build a settlement, you have to have a pre-settlement building (fort/fortress I believe) in order to convert into a settlement.

- Some entity has to be the OWNER of that building.

- One assumes that building a fortress takes a fairly significant amount of time (and possibly ridding the hex of competeing fortresses).

So WHO is eligable to be the OWNER of that fortress? Is it..

A) A Chartered Company, (or other established settlement) who TRANSFERS Ownership of that Fortress to the Group with Settlement Charter so they can CONVERT it into the settlement.

B) The Group with the Settlement Charter....who would therefore need mechanicaly to be allowed to exist long enough without a settlement to create the Fortress building in order to CONVERT it into a settlement.

C) Either of the above.

D) Something else entirely.

I think I understand the mechanics of settlements ONCE they've been built, at least roughly now. It's the getting from the Wilderness Hex to the Established settlement that I'm confused on. It strikes me that either a Settlement Charter social organization will have to be able to exist for sometime without an actualy settlement while they work on the pre-requisite buildings to establish the settlement...or some other organization will have to have some way of transfering/designating that building is to be used by the specific settlement charter organization in order to turn it into a settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out how you get a settlement established. It's a bit confusing..

- In order to build a settlement, you have to have a pre-settlement building (fort/fortress I believe) in order to convert into a settlement.

- Some entity has to be the OWNER of that building.

- One assumes that building a fortress takes a fairly significant amount of time (and possibly ridding the hex of competeing fortresses).

So WHO is eligable to be the OWNER of that fortress? Is it..

A) A Chartered Company, (or other established settlement) who TRANSFERS Ownership of that Fortress to the Group with Settlement Charter so they can CONVERT it into the settlement.

B) The Group with the Settlement Charter....who would therefore need mechanicaly to be allowed to exist long enough without a settlement to create the Fortress building in order to CONVERT it into a settlement.

C) Either of the above.

D) Something else entirely.

I think I understand the mechanics of settlements ONCE they've been built, at least roughly now. It's the getting from the Wilderness Hex to the Established settlement that I'm confused on. It strikes me that either a Settlement Charter social organization will have to be able to exist for sometime without an actualy settlement while they work on the pre-requisite buildings to establish the settlement...or some other organization will have to have some way of transfering/designating that building is to be used by the specific settlement charter organization in order to turn it into a settlement.

After clear the hex of watchtowers and forts then I believe the first step is to find a suitable location in a hex that can have a fort constructed on it (there will usually only be 1 suitable spot per hex).

Once located, a construction camp is started, into which the required resources and blueprint go. Once all the necessary matariels are there then the fort will begin to be contructed. During construction the site will need to be protected.

The owner of the construction camp is the temporary owner of the fort, once it is completed, ownership can be transferred.

Thats how I understand things will work, after recently re-reading all of the blogs.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


So WHO is eligable to be the OWNER of that fortress?

Anyone or any persistent social organization (i.e. anything but an ad hoc party). Some character with the appropriate rights to transfer the building to the Settlement social organization will have to do so as a part of advancing the Fort building to a Settlement building.

We'd like to see some interval between the time the Settlement Charter is signed and the Fort is successfully advanced to be a Settlement so that an opposing force could disrupt the process by destroying the construction area. Once the Settlement building has completed its construction the Charter would come into effect and the Settlement social organization as well. Until then the signers of the Charter remain in whatever social organizations they were in before signing it.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


So WHO is eligable to be the OWNER of that fortress?

Anyone or any persistent social organization (i.e. anything but an ad hoc party). Some character with the appropriate rights to transfer the building to the Settlement social organization will have to do so as a part of advancing the Fort building to a Settlement building.

We'd like to see some interval between the time the Settlement Charter is signed and the Fort is successfully advanced to be a Settlement so that an opposing force could disrupt the process by destroying the construction area. Once the Settlement building has completed its construction the Charter would come into effect and the Settlement social organization as well. Until then the signers of the Charter remain in whatever social organizations they were in before signing it.

RyanD

Ryan,

Ok thanks. So would that imply that building the Fort is expected to be an achievable task for a 24-man (max) Charted Company? Or do you anticipate that it likely that alot of people not officialy affiliated with the OWNING organization of the Fort will be expected to contribute to creating/defending it, in anticipation of being able to join the settlement once it has officialy become a Chartered Organization and the Fort converts?

Just trying to figure out the practical implications of whats involved in establishing different social organizations.

Goblin Squad Member

Building the Fort isn't going to be your problem. The problem will be the supply chain. You'll need way more than 24 people to harvest, process, craft and transport all the required construction materials in a reasonable amount of time.

Getting a character trianed, merit badged, and abilititied to run the construction job will be something you'll be able to reach with a few months of work.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Building the Fort isn't going to be your problem. The problem will be the supply chain. You'll need way more than 24 people to harvest, process, craft and transport all the required construction materials in a reasonable amount of time.

Getting a character trianed, merit badged, and abilititied to run the construction job will be something you'll be able to reach with a few months of work.

This is the best teaser I have read in awhile.


I'm a bit curious how the first settlements will be founded since it will take groups larger than the CCs can hold and pretty much everyone will be trying found their settlement first. Will there be NPC recruitment opportunities to assist?

Goblin Squad Member

Buri wrote:
I'm a bit curious how the first settlements will be founded since it will take groups larger than the CCs can hold and pretty much everyone will be trying found their settlement first. Will there be NPC recruitment opportunities to assist?

From the sounds of it that wouldn't be necessary, most of the tasks that need more than 24 people sound to be fully possible by people outside of the charter, so once one charter has the needed skills and the basic fort, they partner with a second or 3rd charter to "craft and transport all the required construction materials in a reasonable amount of time" after which they add the assisting charter to the settlement.


That still leaves my question of how the first settlements are made unanswered. Also, if that's true, there will be one settlement at the top to whom all other will be subservient. I don't like that idea. I can see how things flow once there are some settlements around as they can wheel and deal for man power but the trick I see at the moment is establishing those first few. Since there will be NPC settlements to start with at the games launch that leaves the only logical source of help to be those very same NPC settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Building the Fort isn't going to be your problem. The problem will be the supply chain. You'll need way more than 24 people to harvest, process, craft and transport all the required construction materials in a reasonable amount of time.

Getting a character trianed, merit badged, and abilititied to run the construction job will be something you'll be able to reach with a few months of work.

I suspect the resources needed to make a Fort will be substantial. Therefore you would either need a lot of people to harvest, process, craft then transport the materials to make a Fort quickly. Otherwise you'll be able to do it at a slower rate, with less people.

The tricky thing might be where to store the require processed materials. You could start storing it in the construction site until you have enough. However, that would allow others to come along and destroy your site before you've got enough of the required materials.

Another option would be to harvest, process and craft the materials and store it 'somewhere' else, and onlt start the construction site once you have everything you need.

That would be my guess, based on the blogs.

Goblin Squad Member

Buri wrote:
That still leaves my question of how the first settlements are made unanswered. Also, if that's true, there will be one settlement at the top to whom all other will be subservient. I don't like that idea. I can see how things flow once there are some settlements around as they can wheel and deal for man power but the trick I see at the moment is establishing those first few. Since there will be NPC settlements to start with at the games launch that leaves the only logical source of help to be those very same NPC settlements.

How does one settlement at the top with all others being subservant come out? 2 charters with similar ideals pool together resources and time and form a settlement? This can happen as many times as desired, where are you getting the everyone being slaves to the first group to do this? The next group can do it just as easily as the first, The only reason they would become subserviant is if they are trying to do it in the first settlement's back yard, granting the first settlement the possibility to attack via siege engines. At least per my guesses, siege engines won't be particularly easy to send over large distances, especially not early in a settlements history. So what is it that makes the early settlements particularly difficult?


Ryan's emphasis on needing more than 24 people (way more) at a time when most will be trying to be first.

Goblin Squad Member

Buri wrote:
Ryan's emphasis on needing more than 24 people (way more) at a time when most will be trying to be first.

Right I get that, but what ties that to existing settlements and not partnerships of unsettled charters? Why would people who have a settlement be more inclined to help vs the thousands of people without settlements?

as far as I can see there is nothing hindering 5 24 man chartered companies without a settlement from working together to build a settlement and merge.

Goblin Squad Member

I doubt most of the resources will come from chartered companies. They'll just be purchased on the market.


I was going to say that. Perhaps the most influential group in the game will be the company who focuses their efforts on building a trading empire.

Will there be NPC 'warehouses' where a Company could store their goods?


Onishi wrote:

Right I get that, but what ties that to existing settlements and not partnerships of unsettled charters? Why would people who have a settlement be more inclined to help vs the thousands of people without settlements?

as far as I can see there is nothing hindering 5 24 man chartered companies without a settlement from working together to build a settlement and merge.

I'm not saying this won't or can't happen, but generally speaking when people form their own group in an MMO they want to be their own entity and the leader wants to lead. The CC government style of oligarchy would help with this immensely as it could offer each group a vote but I don't think there will be very many CCs willing to surrender themselves, basically, to another.

Thanks, Ryan.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Buri wrote:
That still leaves my question of how the first settlements are made unanswered. Also, if that's true, there will be one settlement at the top to whom all other will be subservient. I don't like that idea. I can see how things flow once there are some settlements around as they can wheel and deal for man power but the trick I see at the moment is establishing those first few. Since there will be NPC settlements to start with at the games launch that leaves the only logical source of help to be those very same NPC settlements.
How does one settlement at the top with all others being subservant come out? 2 charters with similar ideals pool together resources and time and form a settlement? This can happen as many times as desired, where are you getting the everyone being slaves to the first group to do this? The next group can do it just as easily as the first, The only reason they would become subserviant is if they are trying to do it in the first settlement's back yard, granting the first settlement the possibility to attack via siege engines. At least per my guesses, siege engines won't be particularly easy to send over large distances, especially not early in a settlements history. So what is it that makes the early settlements particularly difficult?

No but it does leave open the possibility for some really nasty double crosses.....

"Hey thanks for all the money and effort you contributed to clearing the hex and building that fort that we officialy OWN. I know you THOUGHT you were doing that on the condition that we all were going to convert it into a settlement that you could join. But hey, we've already got your labor and resources and since we're the OWNERS of the settlement officialy we get to transfer it to whoever we want....and that group over there just offered us a whole boatload of gold to transfer it to them instead of you. Oh, and since your only a chartered company of 24 with no access to advanced training facilities since you have to be members of an NPC settlement....and no resources of a settlement to support you....it's not like you can do a heck of alot about it in response. But thanks for playing."

Tell me that scenerio isn't ripe for abuse?

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Buri wrote:
Ryan's emphasis on needing more than 24 people (way more) at a time when most will be trying to be first.

Right I get that, but what ties that to existing settlements and not partnerships of unsettled charters? Why would people who have a settlement be more inclined to help vs the thousands of people without settlements?

as far as I can see there is nothing hindering 5 24 man chartered companies without a settlement from working together to build a settlement and merge.

The problem there is trust. It's the organization OWNING the Fort that will have all the power. Everyone else is going to be working on blind faith that the OWNER will be doing the right thing when it comes time to convert it to a settlement.....

And if the OWNER doesn't, the groups who were working with the OWNERS are going to be at an inherint disadvantage to do anything about it....since they won't have access to whatever defences/advantages the Fort provides. They won't have access to the advanced training facilities that a settlement provides once the Fort does get converted into a settlement, nor presumably any of the other advantages....and they won't have access to the organizational benefits provided by membership in a formal social organization larger then 24 members. They'll have already spent a large portion of thier cash/resources in developing the Fort. Plus, since all the arrangements and deals involving the cooperative effort likely have occured outside the game.... the double-crossers likely won't even suffer a mechanical alignment shift.

It looks to me to be a situation ripe for abuse.....and personaly I just don't see what's gained by limiting Chartered Companies to a 24 man roster or not allowing Settlement Charters to exist without a settlement....so people at least have some assurance that they have some ability to excersize control over what happens with the FORT they have contributed time/effort into creating.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


No but it does leave open the possibility for some really nasty double crosses.....

I wouldn't contribute squat to a Settlement project if I was not one of the characters who signed the charter.

You need to have at least 10 people sign the charter. You could have hundreds sign it.

Goblin Squad Member

Buri wrote:
The CC government style of oligarchy would help with this immensely as it could offer each group a vote but I don't think there will be very many CCs willing to surrender themselves, basically, to another.

Yeah people seem a little stuck on the idea that you're supposed to progress from Charted Company to Settlement.

Think rather about all the groups that will skip the Chartered Company step completely.

Here come the Goons.

They put a couple of guys on the job of figuring out how to make the most Coin possible with the least effort possible. They put a few more guys on the task of figuring out where the most defensible and valuable construction sites are for potential settlements.

They also set up a couple of accounts for characters that need to have trained a certain skill path to enable them to do things like run large organizations or build complex structures.

While that work is going on, the other 300 Goons are making as much Coin as they can as fast as they can. They may not even identify themselves as Goons at this stage. Of course, being Goons, there's a sizeable number who are running around trying to gank people. But they're not really interesting for the point of this example.

Suddenly they all come together (they're coordinating on Something Awful), pour all their combined Coin into one pool, buy up all the stuff they need transport it to wherever it needs to be in hundreds of small shipments so that if any are lost they're easy to replace, and put their crews to work building. The hex they're in is nearly impregnable since it's infested with Goons who really, really would like to gank you. Anyone who shows up who isn't a Goon doesn't get to venture much beyond the border of the hex before they're killed. NBSI.

As fast as possible that Settlement goes up and suddenly - VOILA! The Goon Castle of Goatse enters the game.

When you can motivate hundreds to accomplish goals in sandbox MMOs you get much further than you do when you are thinking about groups of dozens.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


No but it does leave open the possibility for some really nasty double crosses.....

I wouldn't contribute squat to a Settlement project if I was not one of the characters who signed the charter.

You need to have at least 10 people sign the charter. You could have hundreds sign it.

Aah, so if I'm understanding you right, the settlement charter is more or less in existance before the settlement is completed, as in you are technically already a member of the settlement when the intent to upgrade the fort is made.

One thing I am also a bit currious of, do lower levels of organization still exist as they advance to newer ones

IE is someone a member of chartered company X of settlement X in Player nation X, while someone else can be of chartered company Y of settlement X in nation X, having a shared settlement and nation chat, but separate chartered company chats... or does it more or less simply advance and prior identifications vanish as one simply becomes a member of Nation X?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


No but it does leave open the possibility for some really nasty double crosses.....

I wouldn't contribute squat to a Settlement project if I was not one of the characters who signed the charter.

You need to have at least 10 people sign the charter. You could have hundreds sign it.

I thought you posted earlier that a Settlement Charter gets disolved if it doesn't have a settlement within a certain time-frame. Are you saying now that it's possible for the Settlement Charter Organization to exist for an extended period of time without a Settlement...and the game will not force the charter to disolve? Meaning the Settlement Charter Organization can work on building the pre-requisites for the Settlement as an Organization?

If that's the case then that answers alot of the issues I see with the proposed system so far.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


I thought you posted earlier that a Settlement Charter gets disolved if it doesn't have a settlement within a certain time-frame. Are you saying now that it's possible for the Settlement Charter Organization to exist for an extended period of time without a Settlement...and the game will not force the charter to disolve? Meaning the Settlement Charter Organization can work on building the pre-requisites for the Settlement as an Organization?

If that's the case then that answers alot of the issues I see with the proposed system so far.

It sounds to me like a settlement charter is formed at the start of construction of a settlement. IE when the fort is chosen to be upgraded, the settlement charter organization is formed tied to that incomplete settlement, then the process to build the settlement begins. If say they started the upgrade and then 1 hour later the under construction settlement were destroyed, then the clock would start for them to find a new place to build a fort and begin construction before the settlement charter organization is gone.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:


It sounds to me like a settlement charter is formed at the start of construction of a settlement. IE when the fort is chosen to be upgraded, the settlement charter organization is formed tied to that incomplete settlement, then the process to build the settlement begins.

Yes, that's exactly what happens. The time the upgrade can be in progress is something we haven't even considered yet but it will be some meaningful limit to avoid perma-constuction.

Quote:
If say they started the upgrade and then 1 hour later the under construction settlement were destroyed, then the clock would start for them to find a new place to build a fort and begin construction before the settlement charter organization is gone.

The more I think about it the more I think that the charter just dissolves if the under-construction Settlement gets destroyed. There is no reason to keep it intact at that point.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:


IE is someone a member of chartered company X of settlement X in Player nation X, while someone else can be of chartered company Y of settlement X in nation X, having a shared settlement and nation chat, but separate chartered company chats... or does it more or less simply advance and prior identifications vanish as one simply becomes a member of Nation X?

You will not lose your membership in a Chartered Company if you join a Settlement, even if that Settlement is different than the one that issued the Charter.

You can only be a member of a Player Nation by proxy through your Settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Hey thanks for all the money and effort you contributed to clearing the hex and building that fort that we officialy OWN. I know you THOUGHT you were doing that on the condition...

While you make a point for a single case, I'd say someone would be foolish to do all the work for a project of that scale with merely a "promise" of significant membership into a settlement. Its naive to perform a service without pay, only on the good word of someone. Is that abuse, sure, but probably not in the way you intended.

This also completely ignores the contract system, and although the details on that seem to be sort of nebulous, its certainly a possibility that you actually issue/sign contracts to clear a hex. Seems a smarter choice rather than just sort of expect everyone to be ok and cool, and then get pissed when they stab your uncovered back.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


I thought you posted earlier that a Settlement Charter gets disolved if it doesn't have a settlement within a certain time-frame. Are you saying now that it's possible for the Settlement Charter Organization to exist for an extended period of time without a Settlement...and the game will not force the charter to disolve? Meaning the Settlement Charter Organization can work on building the pre-requisites for the Settlement as an Organization?

If that's the case then that answers alot of the issues I see with the proposed system so far.

It sounds to me like a settlement charter is formed at the start of construction of a settlement. IE when the fort is chosen to be upgraded, the settlement charter organization is formed tied to that incomplete settlement, then the process to build the settlement begins. If say they started the upgrade and then 1 hour later the under construction settlement were destroyed, then the clock would start for them to find a new place to build a fort and begin construction before the settlement charter organization is gone.

Right, that doesn't address the sleaze I described, which is the effort/resources involved to construct the FORT (which sounds like it's significant) NOT the effort/resources involved in CONVERTING the existing FORT to a settlement...which is the part that can happen AFTER the Settlement Charter comes into existance.

Perhaps, I'm overestimating the amount of time/effort to get the hex to FORT stage...but I've been assuming that's a major portion of the undertaking in getting a settlement established...that's the point where people can get sleazed by the people designated as OWNERS of the Fort

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

Right, that doesn't address the sleaze I described, which is the effort/resources involved to construct the FORT (which sounds like it's significant) NOT the effort/resources involved in CONVERTING the existing FORT to a settlement...which is the part that can happen AFTER the Settlement Charter comes into existance.

Perhaps, I'm overestimating the amount of time/effort to get the hex to FORT stage...but I've been assuming that's a major portion of the undertaking in getting a settlement established...that's the point where people can get sleazed by the people designated as OWNERS of the Fort

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Building the Fort isn't going to be your problem

At least from my understanding, the fort won't be trivial on it's own right, but it will be trivial compared to upgrading the fort to a settlement. I haven't heard anything to imply that building a fort will likely require you to go above and beyond the efforts of a 10-24 man charter. Forts, inn's and watchtowers sound like they aren't intended to be extremely hard to make or earn buildings, at least not in the same league as settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Hey thanks for all the money and effort you contributed to clearing the hex and building that fort that we officialy OWN. I know you THOUGHT you were doing that on the condition...

While you make a point for a single case, I'd say someone would be foolish to do all the work for a project of that scale with merely a "promise" of significant membership into a settlement. Its naive to perform a service without pay, only on the good word of someone. Is that abuse, sure, but probably not in the way you intended.

This also completely ignores the contract system, and although the details on that seem to be sort of nebulous, its certainly a possibility that you actually issue/sign contracts to clear a hex. Seems a smarter choice rather than just sort of expect everyone to be ok and cool, and then get pissed when they stab your uncovered back.

The mechanics of the system described thus far don't seem to allow for anything else. As I understand it, the ONLY eligable OWNERS of the Fort are an Individual or Chartered Company. The Settlement Charter Organization can't exist at that point...since it only gets CREATED when the Charter is signed....and that starts the clock running on the CONVERSION effort to turn the existing FORT into the Settlement.

But actualy BUILDING the FORT has to be done BEFORE the Settlement Charter comes into existence and as a pre-condition to the FORT -> Settlement Conversion project. If the effort involved in building the FORT involves "way" more people then the 24 person (max) membership roster of a Chartered Company (the Fort OWNERS). Then you are going to NECCESARLY have a whole lot of people contributing to the FORT construction effort with nothing more then the (unenforceable) promise that once it gets constructed...the Fort OWNERS will start a Settlement Conversion project and designate thier Settlement Charter Organization (which hasn't been CREATED yet) as the beneficiaries. The mechanics of the system, as I've heard them described don't seem to ALLOW for any sort of mechanisms of assurance for those people, in game.

So how exactly, would you structure such a deal using the described mechanics in order to provide anything more then an unenforceable verbal promise? Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be an important piece of the puzzle missing.


Well, you can create contracts for the hauling, an example from EVE, and, by proxy, crafting as long as you deliver the intended product. So, if a settlement needs, say, 30,000 chairs, you can create a contract for 30,000 chairs to be delivered to a specific location. This would probably have a certain monetary payout, item trade, etc. That's how it could be done. If this is enough or not for non-members to WANT to contribute, however, I don't know.

However, that's why I asked if NPC help were possible because at game launch all we're going to have is some CCs scrambling to get a settlement of their own. So, given people are generally self serving, even in groups but only supplanted by a group mind instead of an individual one, I don't think there will be a great unification of CCs to come together to build the first settlements unless the game forces them to, of course, and even then it could likely be done begrudgingly.

Goblin Squad Member

Grumpy you're missing the point. If you're contributing to the efforts purely on faith, then you've taken a naive risk.

The building of structures isn't really meant to be bootstrapped by a single group. In order to build a Fort, a group will have to rely on more than the 20 or so people in the CC to do the project in a reasonable amount of time. This means they'll be hiring caravaners to transport goods to the site. That's one group of people that are more interested in being paid than in the promise of a transition to a settlement. You'll be able to bolster your fighting forces with contracts to merc companies that are only really interested in pacifying the local monsters, and they maybe aren't interested in wether a settlement occurs or not. So they get paid in coin. Those people that you see automatically excluded from the settlement project (i'm not certain they have to be excluded, but we'll take that as given) can still be compensated before the settlement hatches, and once it does, I believe they can apply for citizenship IN ADDITION to the compensation they received for performing the tasks of pacification/logistics, etc.

Now I've only picked out 2 examples of services that can be rendered towards expediting the hatching of a Settlement, but I'm sure there could be other ways to do so, and again without specific details, the proposed contract system is a fine way to mechanically secure compensation for the efforts. Again; If you take it on faith the Owners of the Fort/Settlement/whatever will pay you in the future, with some promise of inclusion, then you're doing it for free. Don't do work for free. Get paid, and then petition for inclusion.

Goblin Squad Member

As much as CCs will be "scrambling" to build a settlement in the beginning, this is more or less the sub-optimal approach. Sure it should be feasible to try to bootstrap a Settlement into existence with a minimal amount of help. But that's not a robust or efficient way to do it. Once a CC has developed the resources enough to aim for building a full blown Town, it should be a challenge, and one that can be ameliorated by tossing great hopping piles of coin at the problem. This is how its done in the real world, and likely how it will work in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

Right, that doesn't address the sleaze I described, which is the effort/resources involved to construct the FORT (which sounds like it's significant) NOT the effort/resources involved in CONVERTING the existing FORT to a settlement...which is the part that can happen AFTER the Settlement Charter comes into existance.

Perhaps, I'm overestimating the amount of time/effort to get the hex to FORT stage...but I've been assuming that's a major portion of the undertaking in getting a settlement established...that's the point where people can get sleazed by the people designated as OWNERS of the Fort

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Building the Fort isn't going to be your problem
At least from my understanding, the fort won't be trivial on it's own right, but it will be trivial compared to upgrading the fort to a settlement. I haven't heard anything to imply that building a fort will likely require you to go above and beyond the efforts of a 10-24 man charter. Forts, inn's and watchtowers sound like they aren't intended to be extremely hard to make or earn buildings, at least not in the same league as settlements.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but I read that as...

The actual ACT of constructing the FORT isn't a big deal...

Gathering the resources required to BUILD the Fort is the big deal...

My main issue is that the 24 spot roster limitation sounds TINY compared to the level of organization required to do significant things in game....especialy when you consider realistic limitations on player schedules. It pretty much seems to cut out anyone not willing to devote 24/7/365 to playing from that aspect of the game. Are you REALLY willing to waste one of your precious 24 slots in your Chartered Company on me...if I have a life and can only play 1 or 2 nights a week?

Are you going to be able to do that if you are trying to BUILD a Fort and eventualy a settlement?

Are you going to be able to do that if you have to DEFEND your Fort from attack in the process?

No big deal if Chartered Companies aren't the core unit of organization involved in that aspect of the game....and I can be a member of a Settlement Organization that doesn't have those tight limitations.

If Chartered Companies are just performing a similar duty to parties/raids and those sorts of Guilds in the PVE portion of the game...as described elsewhere.... Then the limited slots aren't that huge a deal....but they seem to be doing dual duty and also playing the role of the core unit of organization in the territory control game for carving out and establishing territory...and if that's the case it looks like they are going to be cutting anyone who isn't playing 24/7/365.... COMPLETELY out of participating in that aspect of the game....I'm not talking about being the leader of a social organization participating in that aspect of the game....just a rank and file member.

What use am I to you in your Company if you've got limited slots and I can only play a couple nights a week....and you're trying to build Forts and establish settlements....I'm a defecit in that scenario because I'm occupying a slot that a guy who can do 7 nights a week can. In a Company with unlimited slots...I'm never a liability because even if I can't contribute as much as the guy playing 24/7/365... I can contribute SOMETHING...and allowing me to join/participate doesn't come with any OPPORTUNITY COST for you.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:

Grumpy you're missing the point. If you're contributing to the efforts purely on faith, then you've taken a naive risk.

The building of structures isn't really meant to be bootstrapped by a single group. In order to build a Fort, a group will have to rely on more than the 20 or so people in the CC to do the project in a reasonable amount of time. This means they'll be hiring caravaners to transport goods to the site. That's one group of people that are more interested in being paid than in the promise of a transition to a settlement. You'll be able to bolster your fighting forces with contracts to merc companies that are only really interested in pacifying the local monsters, and they maybe aren't interested in wether a settlement occurs or not. So they get paid in coin. Those people that you see automatically excluded from the settlement project (i'm not certain they have to be excluded, but we'll take that as given) can still be compensated before the settlement hatches, and once it does, I believe they can apply for citizenship IN ADDITION to the compensation they received for performing the tasks of pacification/logistics, etc.

Now I've only picked out 2 examples of services that can be rendered towards expediting the hatching of a Settlement, but I'm sure there could be other ways to do so, and again without specific details, the proposed contract system is a fine way to mechanically secure compensation for the efforts. Again; If you take it on faith the Owners of the Fort/Settlement/whatever will pay you in the future, with some promise of inclusion, then you're doing it for free. Don't do work for free. Get paid, and then petition for inclusion.

- I'm not interested in playing the "finances" game...I'm interested in being a part, if only a small part, of an organization involved in the "empire building game". If Charted Companies are the core organizations involved in that....and they have a membership slot limit...that leaves me out in the cold as far as participation in that aspect of the game. That's because, I have a life and am only going to be playing maybe a couple nights a week. That's because a CC that only has 24 slots availble is going to naturaly want to MAXIMIZE the output of EACH of those limited SLOTS. Giving one of those limited slots to a player who can only contribute 1 or 2 nights a week is a non-starter for a CC who wants to be effective in that game. It's an OPPORTUNITY COST for them to take me...because even though I can contribute something, I can't contribute as much as the other guy they could give the slot to.

- If resources can be bought for Gold (in game) then they are entirely FUNGIBLE. It doesn't matter that a Chartered Company can pay COIN to all sorts of outside entities to provide resources and services. The Chartered Company needs to AQUIRE the COIN to purchase those services/resources first. That requires EFFORT from the Company Members in the first place to get the coin. All you are doing in that scenario by adding COIN into the mix is ABSTRACTING the effort put in by the Company and making it Fungible...

If it requires 20,000 man/hours worth of effort to Build the Fort in resource gathering, construction, defence, hauling, etc.... Then it still requires 20,000 man/hours worth of effort in COIN earning activities by the Company in order to earn the COIN to pay others to provide those services...All you are doing is generciszing the specific TYPE of EFFORT involved by the Company....You aren't changing anything about the SUM TOTAL of EFFORT involved. Again with a limited roster a Company HAS to maximize the EFFORT contributed by each member on the Roster. It can't afford to waste a slot on someone who can contribute 300 man/hours if it can give that slot to someone who can contribute 3000.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:


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

RyanD

Okay, vaguely important question.

I presume that spots good for a Hideout, Inn, Watchtower, and Fort would be different from each other and if you find a location good for one of those, it probably wouldn't be good for the others.

Also, I presume that a Chartered Company programmatically will be limited to having only one physical structure (and the logistics would prevent having much more than that anyway).

The Golden Flask would love to have a tavern (Inn) of its very own to base out of because it would be interesting from a role-playing standpoint as well as a just having a base of operations.

However, I'm not sure what the advantages or disadvantages are of any of the allowed structures which a chartered company can own other than a Fort can be upgraded into a settlement in the event that we would like to move in that direction eventually. *cough*Brewerton*cough*

After all of that lead up, the actual question is: What are the advantages and disadvantages of those various types of structures from a high-level and much hand-waving point of view?

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


- I'm not interested in playing the "finances" game...I'm interested in being a part, if only a small part, of an organization involved in the "empire building game". If Charted Companies are the core organizations involved in that....and they have a membership slot limit...that leaves me out in the cold as far as...

I see absolutely no reason to see chartered companies as the core organization involved in making or breaking the world. In the war concept CC's are likely to be squadrons, and odds are if someones squadron is half empty they would either have members outside of companies, or split teams of multiple companies etc... A 24 man team isn't going to be fighting wars by themselves, settlements and player nations are going to be fighting the wars. Chartered companies have never been described as the big movers and shakers in the world. As a casual player I see nothing that would hinder you from joining a settlement or player nation and showing up in 1 in 3 wars

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
As much as CCs will be "scrambling" to build a settlement in the beginning, this is more or less the sub-optimal approach. Sure it should be feasible to try to bootstrap a Settlement into existence with a minimal amount of help. But that's not a robust or efficient way to do it. Once a CC has developed the resources enough to aim for building a full blown Town, it should be a challenge, and one that can be ameliorated by tossing great hopping piles of coin at the problem. This is how its done in the real world, and likely how it will work in PFO.

Right, but that COIN can only come from it's MEMBERSHIP. If it's MEMBERSHIP is limited to 24 slots... then if you can contribute more COIN or Hours then I can...I'm OUT. The organization would be HURTING itself by WASTING a SLOT on me. Which means I'm completely cut out of participating in that aspect of the game to any degree.

Whereas if MEMBERSHIP slots aren't limited, then ANYTHING I can contribute to the organization improves it's stance. Meaning they have a reason to WANT to include me in the organization (assuming I'm otherwise agreeable to them)... and I can contribute and participate to the degree my play schedule allows...and anything I contribute assists the Company in reaching it's goal.

By making this aspect of play dependant upon organizations that have limited memberships what the proposed mechanics seem to do, in effect, is to INCENTIVIZE organizations to TURN AWAY players who aren't able to contribute 24/7/365... to the point where such players may even be entirely excluded from that aspect of play. Rather then encouraging people to participate at whatever level they are able...and recieve rewards according to thier participation.

The only avenue around that is for players who aren't able to get one of those limited CC slots to Contribute (Hours, Coin, etc) to the Organization in HOPES that once the CC is able to create a settlement and shed it's membership size limitation.....they'll be invited in. In other words people are going to have to contribute on nothing more then faith alone.

Now once a settlement gets built and you have a Settlement Charter Organization and membership is no longer limited by slots...that dynamic goes away...and the settlement has an incentive to invite in anyone who can contribute to some degress....however that seems to be a different aspect of play...it's no longer "empire building" anymore as much as it is "empire maintenance".

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


Right, but that COIN can only come from it's MEMBERSHIP. If it's MEMBERSHIP is limited to 24 slots... then if you can contribute more COIN or Hours then I can...I'm OUT. The organization would be HURTING itself by WASTING a SLOT on me. Which means I'm completely cut out of participating in that aspect of the game to any degree.

Only if your friends are dicks.

The other viewpoint is that 5-6 Chartered Companies realize that none of them have the needed skills nor workers to sufficiently sustain nor build a Settlement on their own and instead decide to join forces. Then you've got nearly 150 spots that can help out. Tada.

Or, 100 people on the boards decide to just build a settlement without anyone creating a Chartered Company first. Tada.

Or, your Chartered Company isn't interested in ever building their own settlement, but you've got some other friends who are interested in it. You help those other people build the settlement and you become a member of it. Tada.

Or, you become independently wealthy and have purchased all of the materials and laborers to build a settlement just for you. You get enough people to qualify for the charter and each are being paid to sign, because they're going to be kicked out directly afterward. The settlement is built and you are the only person that is a part of it. Tada.

251 to 300 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.