Will Dividing Lead to Conquering


Pathfinder Online

Goblin Squad Member

I was thinking today about company organization, and it occurred to me that a company might benefit from splitting itself into multiple smaller companies. However, I'm not very well versed in the implications such an action would have, so I thought I'd start a discussion about it.

What would the consequences be of dividing a company up (e.g. take a group of 60 people into 3 groups of 20)?

One consequence I see is that people feuding them would have difficulty attacking the group as a whole, but the smaller groups couldn't defend each other during that situation with sanctioned PvP (as they aren't part of the feud).

Goblin Squad Member

This is all speculation without knowing what the formulas behind Influence Earn and Burn is, but my current picture is this...

A larger group is going to see diminishing returns on their Influence gain, though I assume have a larger maximum pool. A single larger entity could probably sustain two or three feuds at the same time, but would require much longer to recharge their influence before declaring anew.

The smaller groups will have a smaller max pool, limiting how many they can afford to feud with in short succession, but will be able to rapidly recharge the influence since they do not have the diminishing returns.

What we need to see is an increasing cost per number of companies joining a feud. Otherwise a dominant strategy may well be to have smaller companies with tight meta-level organization to swarm targets.

Goblin Squad Member

Also, it appears you double posted. May want to clean up the other thread before you get a split topic.

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry, haven't made a thread before so I'm unfamiliar with the controls. How do I delete the other thread? >.<

Goblin Squad Member

One of the Site's Administrators has to do it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This was one of the original design philosophies of TSV...intended to compartmentalize inventory, leadership, and responsibility. And no one at even the leadership level has access to anything involving "sovereignty". As might be evident, one of our founding members was...BOB'esque. With the initial comparisons to EVE, we thought it prudent to build in redundancies and precautions.

We have since..."evolved"...as we learn more about mechanics, but our original idea is still the guiding principal. We have yet to see anything that suggests our approach is less than ideal.

There are many other things we hope to see as a benefit of allowing the formation of independent "subgroups" such as maintaining a small guild feel while enjoying big guild content...and most importantly, this allows everyone who wants it, the fun of developing their own community and identity, all the while they are inadvertently building upon our collective one.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

I was thinking today about company organization, and it occurred to me that a company might benefit from splitting itself into multiple smaller companies. However, I'm not very well versed in the implications such an action would have, so I thought I'd start a discussion about it.

What would the consequences be of dividing a company up (e.g. take a group of 60 people into 3 groups of 20)?

One consequence I see is that people feuding them would have difficulty attacking the group as a whole, but the smaller groups couldn't defend each other during that situation with sanctioned PvP (as they aren't part of the feud).

If the company of 60 intended to play 'secret society', and wished to minimize the opportunities for intelligence breaches, then articulating the company into cells could prove very beneficial. It would be organizationally challenging, but every guerrilla has his own way to peel a banana.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

What would the consequences be of dividing a company up (e.g. take a group of 60 people into 3 groups of 20)?

One consequence I see is that people feuding them would have difficulty attacking the group as a whole, but the smaller groups couldn't defend each other during that situation with sanctioned PvP (as they aren't part of the feud).

You get to one of the risks of dividing a company - in feud warfare, it's company vs. company, and allies have to pay to join in the feud.

However, the Influence cost of feuds is based on the relative company sizes. So one of the new 20 person companies could declare feud against an enemy company cheaper than the old 60 person company could. If you have 20 people that are really active and 40 people that are more casual, it might pay off to make the split, depending on Tork's final numbers.

Also, while companies aren't strictly limited to a 50 person cap, there will be diminishing returns above that cap.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Shane Gifford wrote:
What would the consequences be of dividing a company up (e.g. take a group of 60 people into 3 groups of 20)?
You get to one of the risks of dividing a company
Being wrote:
It would be organizationally challenging

This I agree with. However, given time and some wonderful minds...we have also found everything has solutions.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmmm, If I may, warfare has been my focus so far, I can dive in a little behind the philosophies of warfare.

First Generation: Mass (Manpower) warfare.
It involves numbers. Very little doctrine for this kind of warfare. It is the oldest model of warfare and involves simply outnumbering your enemy on a scale of 2:1 or higher. Even battles may take much longer to orchestrate due to very few doctrinal practices.

Second Generation: Weapons (Firepower) Warfare.
It involves having better equipment. The second form of combat to surface throughout history. It involves having specialized units with capable equipment in order to defeat your enemies. Doctrine becomes very important as specialized units need to work together to feed strengths and minimize weaknesses.

Third Generation: Mobility (Maneuver) Warfare.
It involves heavy doctrine and specialization in fighting for smaller units. It incorporates combined arms in order to suppress you're enemy and move on in fighting to allow reserves to deliver the defeat and frees your main force to capturing key terrain and eliminating your enemies war-fighting abilities.

Fourth Generation: Secrets make better adversaries ;)
Shhhh... Rumored to be the oldest form of organized warfare. This one may involve a little research, but I've given enough already.

I hope this information delivers some knowledge in order to help identify how your companies will set up your OOB.


Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

Fourth Generation: Secrets make better adversaries ;)
Shhhh... Rumored to be the oldest form of organized warfare. This one may involve a little research, but I've given enough already.

It's definitely not the oldest, but it's been around for a while. Good post.

Goblin Squad Member

Some other related things we could talk about: do you think one size of company is more ideal than another from a design perspective? What would you consider the "best" company size, from the perspective of a company leader? What additions or modifications would you like to see that would alter the "best" size for your company?

That second question has already been touched on; smaller company units (aka compartmentalization) has the advantage of making the company more resistant to infiltrators and keeping power spread out among many individuals.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

Some other related things we could talk about: do you think one size of company is more ideal than another from a design perspective? What would you consider the "best" company size, from the perspective of a company leader? What additions or modifications would you like to see that would alter the "best" size for your company?

That second question has already been touched on; smaller company units (aka compartmentalization) has the advantage of making the company more resistant to infiltrators and keeping power spread out among many individuals.

I am sure I will have a different opinion once we know more about mechanics.

At the moment it is all design philosophies and psychology for us. Without mechanics, we have to just think about the people and groups we expect to have. For instance, we are about to really start trying to build our military. No matter how mechanics end up, we know this will be a requirement. As such, based upon our design philosophy we want to allow for the possibility of distinct military companies, each with its own identity and fighting style. These companies have the option to contract (remember the contract system) with our primary military company. This primary military company is comprised of a sub-community who have volunteered to take on the goal of finding and documenting the best way to provide defense for our community (TSV is all about finding and documenting). So, from a design perspective, the primary military company is an "officer cadre" who lead the entirety of the guild (multitudes of individual CCs) in any effort which falls under their domain. Returning to your question, how big should a Company be?...as a lower limit...as big as it needs to be to insure its purpose can be successfully fulfilled.

Goblin Squad Member

Personally, I would not like to see every company break up into little 10-man units, or however big the most "optimal" group size seems to be. I would prefer either one large entity or several large entities, for the ease of identifying organizations if nothing else. I understand, however, that the difficulty in identifying the big group is another advantage to the "compartmentalized" method.

Could mechanics for dividing members in a company into "subcompanies" of in-house organizational benefit help by mimicking some of the previously listed benefits?

Goblin Squad Member

I believe there will be a large number of Companies with just a few folks in them. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, I'm not talking about a smaller company of 10 people being a bad thing; I mean I hope a company of 60 people stays as 60 people, instead of deciding it's more optimal for them to operate as 6 10-man companies which operate essentially as one company, but divide for benefits on feud declaration or whatever mechanic they're gaming. Either I hope there's more incentive for bigger companies or I hope there can be some sort of optional intermediate step between company and settlement so that multiple companies can show allegiance to their organization. I dunno, maybe I'm seeing a problem here where one doesn't exist.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

Personally, I would not like to see every company break up into little 10-man units, or however big the most "optimal" group size seems to be. I would prefer either one large entity or several large entities, for the ease of identifying organizations if nothing else. I understand, however, that the difficulty in identifying the big group is another advantage to the "compartmentalized" method.

Could mechanics for dividing members in a company into "subcompanies" of in-house organizational benefit help by mimicking some of the previously listed benefits?

I agree with you...and yes, I hope GW gives us the ability to subdivide and organize any given social association as we wish. I hope it is not required for us to create CC for everyone who wants to be recognized in some independent fashion...but at the same time, I am not sure that is not the purpose of CCs - any smaller group with a shared purpose or identity. Why not embrace it to allow everyone who wants to put in the work to "be their own leader"?

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
... I hope a company of 60 people stays as 60 people...

If the "sweet spot" for Companies is 50 members, I can't imagine how it could possibly be better to have 60 characters in one Company than to have 50 characters in one and the other 10 in another. Now, if we're talking about 53 people, I can see how it might be better to keep all 53 in one Company than to split up where neither Company hits the sweet spot of 50.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Returning to your question, how big should a Company be?...as a lower limit...as big as it needs to be to insure its purpose can be successfully fulfilled.

Yup. In some cases, being bigger than needed will mean that your multi-company organization, whether military- or settlement-based, has idle manpower or influence. Economy of Force will be in effect.

Shane Gifford wrote:
Either I hope there's more incentive for bigger companies or I hope there can be some sort of optional intermediate step between company and settlement so that multiple companies can show allegiance to their organization.

Perhaps companies should have a name, which is permanent or at least semi-permanent, and a secondary name which is easily changed.

So for example, your company name might be "Gifford's Greyhounds". But you might set your secondary name as "Third Guard Regiment" (your military organization, which has multiple companies), or "First in the Breach" (to recognize some honor you all won), or "Death to the Horde" (your battle cry).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course, they might well decide that the "sweet spot" isn't at exactly 50, but rather is "between 8 and 50" or something similar. In that case, it's possible that having 2 Companies of 25 and 26 characters respectively might be better than having one Company of 51 characters.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
Yeah, I'm not talking about a smaller company of 10 people being a bad thing; I mean I hope a company of 60 people stays as 60 people, instead of deciding it's more optimal for them to operate as 6 10-man companies which operate essentially as one company, but divide for benefits on feud declaration or whatever mechanic they're gaming. Either I hope there's more incentive for bigger companies or I hope there can be some sort of optional intermediate step between company and settlement so that multiple companies can show allegiance to their organization. I dunno, maybe I'm seeing a problem here where one doesn't exist.

It is a different approach. Nihimon just has the curse...err benefit...of listening to me preach my design philosophy for a year.

I hope there is a way to create an official "grouping" of CCs. I am not sure what benefit or function that grouping would give though. An obvious example we have discussed internally is an alliance of CCs. This alliance would be treated like a single CC for the purposes of feuds, but influence and such is earned independently. It would also get an organization UI that was essentially equivalent to that of a CC...but individual members are CCs not characters. At this point, I do not know if it would be a positive addition to the game design or not.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Nihimon just has the curse...err benefit...of listening to me preach my design philosophy for a year.

... or two :)

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

I was thinking today about company organization, and it occurred to me that a company might benefit from splitting itself into multiple smaller companies. However, I'm not very well versed in the implications such an action would have, so I thought I'd start a discussion about it.

What would the consequences be of dividing a company up (e.g. take a group of 60 people into 3 groups of 20)?

One consequence I see is that people feuding them would have difficulty attacking the group as a whole, but the smaller groups couldn't defend each other during that situation with sanctioned PvP (as they aren't part of the feud).

Sorry, did not mean to hijack this into a discussion of TSV design philosophy, was just offering some thoughts we had since this is something we are dealing with.

I would love to hear how others intend to address these concerns (if they have considered them). On a related note, do settlements intend to limit alts from creating "storage CCs"?

Goblin Squad Member

You're more than welcome to hijack the thread. :)

Yeah, some kind of company alliance is basically what I was thinking when I said "some sort of optional intermediate step between company and settlement so that multiple companies can show allegiance to their organization". So that the independant companies can operate as one company and not be penalized for having a lot of members.

Goblin Squad Member

There's also a question of parties, temporary groups which frankly seem useful for military ad hoc organization. Some organization of multiple parties would be useful for assembling militias outside of their normal crafting companies.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Urman, were you talking about some system for prearranging parties, so that with a few button presses you can invite an entire group to a party at once? Because such a system sounds like it could be extremely useful and convenient in a number of ways.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shane Gifford wrote:
Urman, were you talking about some system for prearranging parties, so that with a few button presses you can invite an entire group to a party at once? Because such a system sounds like it could be extremely useful and convenient in a number of ways.

Absolutely. In fact, I hope it's simple to invite another party to join my party in such a way that they can leave my party and still be intact as their original party, or even that they still retain their own private "party" chat while still having access to my party chat.

Goblin Squad Member

Prearranged parties* would actually be pretty useful too, but I was talking more of an uber-party organization, like the company alliance you offered.

Just reading through various company settlement concepts, I saw that TEO would have a organized military and would also have militia. That sort of implies multiple companies in the military side, and multiple crafting/gathering companies whose members form the militia.

The crafting companies don't necessarily go off to war - just some fraction of them. So they need to be able to form military units on a game-session basis; these units might effectively be parties. Hojo Hominygrits doesn't exit his crafting company when he goes to war, I don't think. Hojo just rushes to the town square and falls in with the other volunteers to form a new unit.

Anyway, these military units/parties need to have some higher echelon grouping if we're going to see large battles of over 50 people on a side. And that might be able to have subordinate companies and subordinate parties at the same time.

* Prearranged parties would make a lot of sense for military and militia both. I'd think that after they were set up, any member could activate such a party and any approved member could self-join rather than waiting for an invite. The approved roster might be ranked; ranking member present is the leader. The leader could invite others in to fill gaps in the ranks.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Just reading through various company settlement concepts, I saw that TEO would have a organized military and would also have militia. That sort of implies multiple companies in the military side, and multiple crafting/gathering companies whose members form the militia.

This is something we've been thinking about in T7V since the beginning. We have our Choruses, but we really don't know whether it's going to be appropriate at all for those to manifest as Companies. I think we're generally of the mind that The Seventh Veil itself, and each of our Choruses, are meta-game communities, and don't have to be represented by an equivalent in-game structure.

This reminds me...

You can be a member of up to three venture companies, but only one of them can be a settlement-sponsored venture company (in other words, all the members belong to the same settlement).

I'm really curious to eventually learn how this is going to work.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:


Just reading through various company settlement concepts, I saw that TEO would have a organized military and would also have militia. That sort of implies multiple companies in the military side, and multiple crafting/gathering companies whose members form the militia.

Indeed, TEO has been set up with focus-oriented divisions from the beginning. As a clarification, I believe the organized military (Argent Guard) is a PvE/Escalation focused group that may have a hand in our militia training as well. The militia will not be a formal group, but is basically our PvP defense/patrol volunteers. We have not yet laid out whether we will go with a monolithic company of TEO or sub-divide into our TEO groupings, and probably will not make a decision until much closer to EE so that we can be more aware of pros and cons. Dividing them would mean re-working our Primary and Secondary affiliation systems if they are all sponsored companies. And if they are not all sponsored companies, we may need to make a special division that will be sponsored for helping to establish Brighthaven. But if we go that route, then we may be taking up two company joins for many members. And potentially all three if they also join militia.

Ultimately, we do not yet know enough about the math and the systems to properly choose upon Divided or Monolithic at this time.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, the information is pretty lacking on specifics at the moment, but we can talk about the general benefits and drawbacks of having a big group versus a small group. Lifedragn, would you like to see your group as one big company, or as several smaller purpose-oriented companies, or maybe as something else? Why do you have your personal preference?

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Will Dividing Lead to Conquering All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online