Alliances


Pathfinder Online

101 to 138 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

As far as splitting a large group into many with a meta-group ruling it:

Tork Shaw wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Sounds to me that it'll make sense for some large guilds to break into many smaller Chartered Companies to reduce the overhead on POI management. Out of game, they'll still be the large organization and have all the resources to defend their POIs.

Indeedy. That was one of the goals with this feudal system we have created. We have very little control over off-line relationships obviously, and such relationships can play havoc with any in-game systems designed to promote volatility within an organisation. With the Outpost/PoI/Settlement triumvirate in place we can grant mechanical control to more individuals - so if/when they fall out with their pals offline they potentially have enough mechanical autonomy to do something about it in game.

Basically, it always makes sense mechanically to spread the responsibilities of managing a settlement/PoI, but that also opens up the potential for betrayal and power-broking. Being the most successful settlement also puts you at some politicking risk.


Being wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
I agree their should be consequences to actions. I just disagree that game mechanics should be the one imposing those. I can assure you the consequences we impose on you will be a damn sight more severe than anything the game hands out
Arguing against regulation by the game, then pronouncing dire political warnings that your autocratically imposed regulations will be much more severe, does suggest that impersonal and mechanical regulation of the nation-state via game mechanics is fairer, more appropriate and ultimately preferable.

Our imposed regulations will be imposed regardless of what the game does.

If you betray us you will get either

our retribution

or

game retribution
our retribution

We dont care about the game mechanics. They will either be so weak there is no point or they will be so harsh no one uses in game mechanics. It is not an issue for us

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Being wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
I agree their should be consequences to actions. I just disagree that game mechanics should be the one imposing those. I can assure you the consequences we impose on you will be a damn sight more severe than anything the game hands out
Arguing against regulation by the game, then pronouncing dire political warnings that your autocratically imposed regulations will be much more severe, does suggest that impersonal and mechanical regulation of the nation-state via game mechanics is fairer, more appropriate and ultimately preferable.

Our imposed regulations will be imposed regardless of what the game does.

If you betray us you will get either

our retribution

or

game retribution
our retribution

We dont care about the game mechanics. They will either be so weak there is no point or they will be so harsh no one uses in game mechanics. It is not an issue for us

Aren't you supposed to end that with an evil laugh?

Muahaha!


Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Being wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
I agree their should be consequences to actions. I just disagree that game mechanics should be the one imposing those. I can assure you the consequences we impose on you will be a damn sight more severe than anything the game hands out
Arguing against regulation by the game, then pronouncing dire political warnings that your autocratically imposed regulations will be much more severe, does suggest that impersonal and mechanical regulation of the nation-state via game mechanics is fairer, more appropriate and ultimately preferable.

Our imposed regulations will be imposed regardless of what the game does.

If you betray us you will get either

our retribution

or

game retribution
our retribution

We dont care about the game mechanics. They will either be so weak there is no point or they will be so harsh no one uses in game mechanics. It is not an issue for us

Aren't you supposed to end that with an evil laugh?

Muahaha!

I would but unfortunately it looks like we will have to be lawful good or lawful neutral so we will have to tut instead when it happens and go "tsk tsk sir that was really not what you wanted to do and now you have forced us into enacting our lawful vengeance"

Muahaha! would certainly be quicker to say though

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
The reason I think it's better to make alliances an in-game mechanic rather than an out-of-game agreement is the reason you said yourself, Steelwing: when you attack someone, in most cases it should be clear who you're attacking. However, if there's no benefits or penalties to making an in-game alliance, why would you make them? I see it as making things clearer for your enemies, and thus easier for them.

You make them in game mostly because it allows you to share things like red and blue lists more easily. If you put benefits in you attract groups into splitting artificially so they can have in game alliances. If you put penalties in you dissuade people from having in game alliances and push them towards meta game alliances.

The way to encourage in game alliances is through convenience. Allow alliances to have shared red and blue lists. Allow alliances discounts on market fees and training fees etc. Not mechanical bonus's to di etc

Those weren't the kind of mechanical benefits I personally had in mind; in fact, the things I thought of were probably things you'd label as convenience (and you did, for one of them).

Besides the benefits of red/blue lists, here are some other things I'd consider good benefits for making an in-game alliance:

  • Faster move speed when travelling to/through their settlements (only up to your move speed to your own settlement, if the speed to other locations is lessened)
  • ability to bind to their spawn points
  • ability to set separate tax rates, toll fees, or whatever else for the other kingdom

Just a few ideas, and of course they'd have to be refined, but you get the idea. Nothing that would make an alliance mechanically superior to a single kingdom, but instead things that allow them to cooperate much more smoothly than two kingdoms without an alliance in place. There are many other places where GW could put in more little barriers for meta-alliances while keeping in-game alliances unharmed, through simple restrictions in UI for unallied groups similar to the first example. Any thoughts on these things?


I think convenience can certainly be used to make it enticing. I do not believe the carrot and the stick approach works here for the reason I outlined

Goblin Squad Member

As an extension of that thought, it'd be nice if the UI supported all sorts of positive interaction, hostile interaction, and everything in between for kingdom-to-kingdom interactions, through a neutral "decree" UI. Something where you could, say, either lower taxes for merchants belonging to one settlement or increase taxes toward merchants from your vassal states, demand free passage for your own people without allowing them to pass through your lands, or do any manner of other things with it. This, I believe, would be superior to a UI which is restricted to only positive alliance-type interactions, especially since it would allow differing types of alliance (for example, a strictly trade alliance, or a full-blown alliance where both have large allowances with each other). I think it would help people to avoid being burned by allies if they can control how much allowance they give to their allies, rather than an all-or-nothing type approach.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that if the benefits or downsides of an alliance are too restrictive then no one will bother.

Frankly I don't think there should be any mechanical benefits to an alliance and therefore there should be no repercussions for breaking an alliance either.

That way at least when you attack settlement A you are in no doubt who you are attacking because all alliances are in the open because there is no reason to use meta game alliances.

Then whats the point of GW implimenting an Alliance system if there are no mechanical benefits or downsides? That would sound like an arguement for not having one in the first place?


GrumpyMel wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that if the benefits or downsides of an alliance are too restrictive then no one will bother.

Frankly I don't think there should be any mechanical benefits to an alliance and therefore there should be no repercussions for breaking an alliance either.

That way at least when you attack settlement A you are in no doubt who you are attacking because all alliances are in the open because there is no reason to use meta game alliances.

Then whats the point of GW implimenting an Alliance system if there are no mechanical benefits or downsides? That would sound like an arguement for not having one in the first place?

As I have already suggested to someone else the advantage is convenience. If GW makes it easy to do convenience things such as share red and blue lists, to make alliance members act more like settlement members in terms of how laws are applied etc. That is if they want to code anything in system about alliances whatsoever.

Frankly most of the systems that people argue for here aren't actually needed and they would be better spending the time coding things that are needed. An example being caravans. People have been organising escorted freighter runs with guards for years in Eve. There are no mechanics involved whatsoever except the ability to form a group. Why people feel they need a mechanic in order to do so in PfO is a matter of bewildermint.

Left to their own devices players will form and break alliances quite naturally without any system interference whatsoever. All codifying it does is allow particular sets of alliance terms to be in game and means anything outside the devs imagination you still need to do as a meta alliance anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
To give an example Phaeros and Brighthaven might agree a limited alliance to take down Pax. If that is the case the alliance will last for that limited scope of endeavour and I fail to see why Phaeros or Brighthaven should take some mechanical penalty for the ending of that alliance

One wouldn't really consider that a formal alliance then...more a backroom deal or gentlemans agreement. An alliance, at least in the scope I think PFO is shooting for, I would envision more like NATO or the Hanseatic League or something like that. It's a formal, ratified by law and publicaly recognized treaty. Member states retain thier own autonomy and obviously could withdraw but there are very serious consequences to the expectations of thier own populaces expectations for doing so.


GrumpyMel wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
To give an example Phaeros and Brighthaven might agree a limited alliance to take down Pax. If that is the case the alliance will last for that limited scope of endeavour and I fail to see why Phaeros or Brighthaven should take some mechanical penalty for the ending of that alliance
One wouldn't really consider that a formal alliance then...more a backroom deal or gentlemans agreement. An alliance, at least in the scope I think PFO is shooting for, I would envision more like NATO or the Hanseatic League or something like that. It's a formal, ratified by law and publicaly recognized treaty. Member states retain thier own autonomy and obviously could withdraw but there are very serious consequences to the expectations of thier own populaces expectations for doing so.

What you are describing as an alliance is what Goblinworks calls a kingdom and fairly permanent alliance of settlements such as the Pax grouping has with their 3 proposed settlements bound together in the Xeilian empire.

The alliances I am talking about is agreements between independent entities. If Phaeros and Brighthaven wish to merge into one kingdom that is up to them. They should however also be able to decide to have a much looser alliance in order to accomplish some task

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:

Serious question here

You guys keep coming up with things which are of benefit for groups to do in any case but you then go on to insist that there is a mechanic for it rather than just to groups talking and agreeing on it and then you go further and ask for extra benefits for doing something that is already beneficial for you to do just by the nature of it.

Why not just leave it up to players to sort out, you don't need mechanics and you do not need artificial benefits. If it is in your favor as a group just do it

Because it's simulating the way that kingdoms and settlements actualy work. Remember a big portion of the gameplay in this aspect of the game is settlement and kingdom management. In managing a settlement or kingdom you are not just dealing with your player character members. In fact, those are probably by far a minority of a well developed kingdom but all the NPC populace of the kingdom. All those common folk doing mundane things which are absolutely vital to the function of a kingdom.

If that wasn't an important aspect of gameplay then there would be no point in having things like Development Index's or Unrest or any of the other mechanical measurements of your kingdom/settlment in the first place.


GrumpyMel wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

Serious question here

You guys keep coming up with things which are of benefit for groups to do in any case but you then go on to insist that there is a mechanic for it rather than just to groups talking and agreeing on it and then you go further and ask for extra benefits for doing something that is already beneficial for you to do just by the nature of it.

Why not just leave it up to players to sort out, you don't need mechanics and you do not need artificial benefits. If it is in your favor as a group just do it

Because it's simulating the way that kingdoms and settlements actualy work. Remember a big portion of the gameplay in this aspect of the game is settlement and kingdom management. In managing a settlement or kingdom you are not just dealing with your player character members. In fact, those are probably by far a minority of a well developed kingdom but all the NPC populace of the kingdom. All those common folk doing mundane things which are absolutely vital to the function of a kingdom.

If that wasn't an important aspect of gameplay then there would be no point in having things like Development Index's or Unrest or any of the other mechanical measurements of your kingdom/settlment in the first place.

And the kingdom mechanic is in as I have pointed out. The argument that there needs to be some coded in method of treaties between independent kingdoms is still to my mind spurious. Can you suggest one thing that a coded in system will allow that letting players do it for themselves won't (except penalties and rewards which aren't part of the system merely inducements to use the system).

I fail to see why in the example I gave on caravans that it adds anything to the settlement ruling game whatsoever. It is merely another system that the devs would have to code which could just as easily be accomplished by players just doing it for themselves

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
The alliances I am talking about is agreements between independent entities. If Phaeros and Brighthaven wish to merge into one kingdom that is up to them. They should however also be able to decide to have a much looser alliance in order to accomplish some task

This is what I actually suggested for the Brethren of the Wild Lands and later, the Outlaw Council.

Independent individuals or unsponsored companies coming together in the meta game (outside forums and voice programs) to organize and develop a mutually beneficial partnership (alliance).


In addition to all of that an alliance system such as you propose would end up with a few big alliances which every independent feeling they have to join one or the other and once in feel they can't leave because of penalties.

Given a choice do you want to play in

a) A game of thrones style milieu of fluid alliances, betrayal and ever changing political landscape

or

b) A coldwar style miliey of 2 or 3 big bloc alliances that don't actually dare to goto war with each other because doing so will plunge the whole River kingdoms into the fire

My vote is A and for that alliances need to be easy to make and break and also allowed to be limited to the terms agreed by the two parties not just a set of terms that can be selected from a pre coded list.

I want to be able to say to a settlement that approaches us for aid "Yes we will support you in your attack on settlement B but only if you are successful in the attack on settlement A that you are about to make"

So we have an alliance but further support is conditional on some other item. Can't see the devs being able to capture all of the particular terms and conditions groups could want can you?

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Can you suggest one thing that a coded in system will allow that letting players do it for themselves won't (except penalties and rewards which aren't part of the system merely inducements to use the system).

I believe contracts are a significant contributor to the reputation system outside the little bit addressing Jerk behavior. Reputation is necessary for high-end transactions. Treaties between kingdoms are contracts, and I expect that the parties to such a treaty will have reputation invested in them. An inferred consequence is that allies will have real (in-game) economic incentive to form alliances and keep them, just as players will have incentive to make and not break their contracts. The effects could reach as far as commodity futures trading, currency exchange, shared markets, reduced tariffs, increased NPC (guards) support or reduced faction costs... the effects could be extremely far reaching.

Arguing against in-game, mechanically encouraged agreements is arguing for in-built division and segmentation.

The house divided. The center cannot hold.


Being wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Can you suggest one thing that a coded in system will allow that letting players do it for themselves won't (except penalties and rewards which aren't part of the system merely inducements to use the system).
I believe contracts are a significant contributor to the reputation system outside the little bit addressing Jerk behavior. Reputation is necessary for high-end transactions. Treaties between kingdoms are contracts, and I expect that the parties to such a treaty will have reputation invested in them. An inferred consequence is that allies will have real (in-game) economic incentive to form alliances and keep them, just as players will have incentive to make and not break their contracts.

Contracts work in eve because they are pretty limited and there are plenty of things they do not cover and cannot be used for. Treaties frankly will be to complex for a contract system for exactly that reason.

A contract system will only ever be able to cover the things that devs can come up with until such a time as someone gets a computer to understand natural language. I suspect this endeavour might be somewhat outside Goblinworks budget

Kingdoms in and of themselves have no reputation and frankly reputation is a system that is not going to survive EE anyway in my opinion

Goblin Squad Member

Sounds like a fairly makeshift defense there. Treaties can be formed using a checkbox style interface: no big problem. Contracts are already in the game. Reputation is already in the game. Settlement and kingdom Development Indices are already in the game.

It would be relatively neither difficult nor expensive to implement.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

Serious question here

You guys keep coming up with things which are of benefit for groups to do in any case but you then go on to insist that there is a mechanic for it rather than just to groups talking and agreeing on it and then you go further and ask for extra benefits for doing something that is already beneficial for you to do just by the nature of it.

Why not just leave it up to players to sort out, you don't need mechanics and you do not need artificial benefits. If it is in your favor as a group just do it

Because it's simulating the way that kingdoms and settlements actualy work. Remember a big portion of the gameplay in this aspect of the game is settlement and kingdom management. In managing a settlement or kingdom you are not just dealing with your player character members. In fact, those are probably by far a minority of a well developed kingdom but all the NPC populace of the kingdom. All those common folk doing mundane things which are absolutely vital to the function of a kingdom.

If that wasn't an important aspect of gameplay then there would be no point in having things like Development Index's or Unrest or any of the other mechanical measurements of your kingdom/settlment in the first place.

And the kingdom mechanic is in as I have pointed out. The argument that there needs to be some coded in method of treaties between independent kingdoms is still to my mind spurious. Can you suggest one thing that a coded in system will allow that letting players do it for themselves won't (except penalties and rewards which aren't part of the system merely inducements to use the system).

I fail to see why in the example I gave on caravans that it adds anything to the settlement ruling game whatsoever. It is merely another system that the devs would have to code which could just as easily be accomplished by players just doing it for themselves

- It will provide a mechanism to reflect the attitude of your kingdom or settlements populace toward your foreign policy decisions. That's gameplay. Part of the kingdom management aspect of play. Meaningfull choices and tradeoffs in policy decision making. It adds another aspect into consideration beyond what simple force of arms might entail.

- It provides an additional sense of surity between kingdom/settlement level entities by imposing mechanical consequences in the same manner and under the same rationale that contracts do for individuals. A kingdom/settlement knows you are less likely to betray it's trust if there is an additional mechanical penalty involved. Even if it is inferior in force of arms to you, there is still a consequence to you breaching a formaly recognized agreement.

- It provides meaningfull gameplay choices. Do you want to be a Kingdom/Settlement that enjoys complete freedom of action, free to attack/backstab anyone you like as long as your force of arms allows or do you want to be a Kingdom/Settlement that enjoys an enhanced economy due to your citizens having confidence in the stable relationships you hold with other realms?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:

Sounds like a fairly makeshift defense there. Treaties can be formed using a checkbox style interface: no big problem. Contracts are already in the game. Reputation is already in the game. Settlement and kingdom Development Indices are already in the game.

It would be relatively neither difficult nor expensive to implement.

Exactly a checkbox list. Not on the list tough luck. The whole reason people are arguing for a coded system can be spelt out in one sentence

I do not want to have to enforce treaties I want the system to do it for me.

In other words you do not want meaningful player interaction you want some coded mechanic to do it for you. You don't want people to break treaties? That is a fine position to take however it should be down to your group to ensure that the other party doesn't want to break that treaty not some hard coded penalty where you can sit back and do no interaction.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, I'm hoping different options for types of group lead to different "RULE-SETS" for groups, in summary.

Goblin Squad Member

Making treaties is certainly interplayer activity. It is less arbitrary and subject to autocracy and arbitrary whim. It would also get in the way of deceptive diplomacy-without-cost.

Typification of a hypothetical system proposal using a strawman in its place is pretty transparent to the minds I've seen working on this game.

Goblin Squad Member

@Steelwing,

There is nothing to say that formal alliances are all benefits and no drawbacks. By using only meta-game agreements a kingdom/settlement has complete freedom of action in it's foreign policy. It is free and without consequence to take advantage of any ripe opportunity as it arises. That's a very powerfull advantage.

A kingdom/settlement that enters into settlements forgoes that advantage. It limits the actions it can take, even if a good opportunity arises against an Ally, it knows there will be a certain repercusion from that. To balance that it enjoys greater surity in it's relationships, even in moments of millitary weakness. It might even enjoy a small economic advantage from that stability.

Neither of these is or should be the clearly obvious superior choice. Each of them simply indicates a different style of play that the Kingdom/Settlement might choose to pursue.


Being wrote:

Making treaties is certainly interplayer activity. It is less arbitrary and subject to autocracy and arbitrary whim. It would also get in the way of deceptive diplomacy-without-cost.

Typification of a hypothetical system proposal using a strawman in its place is pretty transparent to the minds I've seen working on this game.

Your treaties will fail whether using a coded system or not because you lack the will to enforce them and would rather have your hand held by the system *shrug* no skin of my nose frankly and even if they waste their time putting such a treaty system in I don't expect any capable group to use it because we can provide far more effective deterrents anyway and also have the will to do so.

I am purely against the dev's wasting their time on stuff that won't have any real impact in the game

Goblin Squad Member

Anything not on the list would be in the same status as your meta-agreements It is just part of the cost of doing international business if the rider agreement is broken. Then the aggrieved has a meaningful decision whether to break the alliance and pay the piper for that pleasure or let it go, especially where it is the client state facing the superpower.


Being wrote:
Anything not on the list would be in the same status as your meta-agreements It is just part of the cost of doing international business if the rider agreement is broken. Then the aggrieved has a meaningful decision whether to break the alliance and pay the piper for that pleasure or let it go, especially where it is the client state facing the superpower.

And as I pointed out anyone approaching any superpower and suggesting they use the in game treaty system is likely to be laughed at. It will be used by little guys only because it is to no advantage to us.

It is the little guy that is the supplicant here and he will have to take whats offered because frankly the big guy is completely indifferent

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Being wrote:

Making treaties is certainly interplayer activity. It is less arbitrary and subject to autocracy and arbitrary whim. It would also get in the way of deceptive diplomacy-without-cost.

Typification of a hypothetical system proposal using a strawman in its place is pretty transparent to the minds I've seen working on this game.

Your treaties will fail whether using a coded system or not because you lack the will to enforce them and would rather have your hand held by the system *shrug* no skin of my nose frankly and even if they waste their time putting such a treaty system in I don't expect any capable group to use it because we can provide far more effective deterrents anyway and also have the will to do so.

I am purely against the dev's wasting their time on stuff that won't have any real impact in the game

If a metasystem is used by one party that is not readily available to everyone then the precedent has been to encode it so everyone can use it. If an overt encoded treaty system offers substantial economic and military advantage to both parties it will be used and you know it.

It isn't hand-holding to provide an instrument of diplomacy: the work is in the diplomacy.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Can you suggest one thing that a coded in system will allow that letting players do it for themselves won't (except penalties and rewards which aren't part of the system merely inducements to use the system).

Ryan has repeatedly stated their intent to use game systems to moderate player behavior. The penalties and rewards are not "merely inducements to use the system". Rather, they are part of a complex, layered approach to ensuring that PFO maintains the desired community traits.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:

And as I pointed out anyone approaching any superpower and suggesting they use the in game treaty system is likely to be laughed at. It will be used by little guys only because it is to no advantage to us.

It is the little guy that is the supplicant here and he will have to take whats offered because frankly the big guy is completely indifferent

Then don't use it, since you already know you will be the superpower.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:

The whole reason people are arguing for a coded system can be spelt out in one sentence

I do not want to have to enforce treaties I want the system to do it for me.

That argument is just as valid against an in-game Contract system, and yet the devs feel an in-game Contract system is important, perhaps even vital.

Perhaps there's something to be learned from that fact.


Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Can you suggest one thing that a coded in system will allow that letting players do it for themselves won't (except penalties and rewards which aren't part of the system merely inducements to use the system).
Ryan has repeatedly stated their intent to use game systems to moderate player behavior. The penalties and rewards are not "merely inducements to use the system". Rather, they are part of a complex, layered approach to ensuring that PFO maintains the desired community traits.

And as I have pointed out already

If the penalties are harsh then no one will use them because they can easily step around them using the metagame

If the penalties aren't harsh people will break them at whim

Which leads us back to the point that there is no point having them because the penalties will dictate one of the two conditions.

Goblinworks intent is irrelevant because they frankly won't succeed in the same way that every other game developer who has made similar claims has failed.


Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

The whole reason people are arguing for a coded system can be spelt out in one sentence

I do not want to have to enforce treaties I want the system to do it for me.

That argument is just as valid against an in-game Contract system, and yet the devs feel an in-game Contract system is important, perhaps even vital.

Perhaps there's something to be learned from that fact.

Eve has an in game contract system. It is very simple and covers really only two situations Sale of goods and haulage. These are both simple scenario's with simple conditions.

Even a simple treaty will be impossible for the system to determine if it has been fulfilled. Here is an example

Settlement A and B have a treaty agreeing if either settlement is attacked that the others will help defend

Settlement A is attacked all settlement B players are logged off. Do settlement B get punished for treaty breaking?

They could be logged off because they are all americans and the attack is at 4am their time

They could be logged off because they knew the attack was coming and had been warned to stay logged off.

Eve contracts work in their limited nature because they measure tangible actions. You paid the required amount or you moved the goods. It is binary yes or no. Treaties will by their very nature revolve around area's where lack of action can be as much a breach as particular actions. Lack of action is difficult to code for and I am pretty sure that GW is sensible to not even try


Forgot to mention

I wouldn't mind if there was no contract system in PfO. The one in Eve isn't actually necessary as reliable groups soon gain a metagame reputation for trust. This is why groups like the Frog transport teams do so well.

There are huge area's that are not supported by the contract system and players still manage to deal in these areas without to many problems by using trusted third parties that have established a reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

The whole reason people are arguing for a coded system can be spelt out in one sentence

I do not want to have to enforce treaties I want the system to do it for me.

That argument is just as valid against an in-game Contract system, and yet the devs feel an in-game Contract system is important, perhaps even vital.

Perhaps there's something to be learned from that fact.

Or...

Friends lists (what? you cannot keep track of your friends out of game? must not be real friends then...your friendship will fail)...

Chat functions (Voice chat is better anyways, anyone who uses the in-game system will be laughed at)...

Character sheets (you could after all just utilize a meta-game spreadsheet to figure out your stats, why do you need an in-game mechanic to do your work for you?)...

Personally, I am arguing for a coded system for three primary reasons, one, that coded system represents the uncoded population of the game, the multitudes of unmarked/unheroic NPCs who live and work in The River Kingdoms. They, for instance, will not like war being brought by an ally...leading to general unrest and decreased production. Unheroic they might be, but masses still have momentum. Two, as mentioned by Nihimon and many others, the purpose of many of these systems are to entice us players into being a "better community" (as dictated by GW). Since most people will pursue the roles that provide the most mechanical advantage, it is logical to offer more mechanical advantage to roles that contribute more positively to the well-being of the community, or at least more to the continued function of the system as desired. Finally, I am a semi-casual player, if the tools to play the game are not what I would consider user-friendly, I will go find one that is.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:

If the penalties are harsh then no one will use them because they can easily step around them using the metagame

If the penalties aren't harsh people will break them at whim

Which leads us back to the point that there is no point having them because the penalties will dictate one of the two conditions.

Focusing only on penalties is a lopsided approach prone to skewed results. Focus on the benefits of formal (coded) alliance and the advantages become obvious to anyone preferring to understand rather than obfuscate. Break the alliance and those benefits are removed. On top of that is any mechanical dissuasive 'penalty'. And finally is the meta-reputation of an outfit that has demonstrated unreliability or even betrayal of an ally.

The mechanical elements should preclude most bald-faced lying and deceptive protests of innocence. It will not merely be one kingdom's word against that of another.

Out-of-contract informal 'rider' agreements between the parties to a negotiated treaty or contract would still be subject to deceptive representation, but the bulk of conditions should prove reasonable to code and measure.

Goblin Squad Member

I would like to see an alliance system. However it wouldnt be to spell out what the terms of the treaty would be it would ONLY allow control of mechanical benefits.

For example Settlement A and Settlement B are buddies. settlement A is LN with more of a focus on crafting/merchanting and settlement B is LG with more of a focus on killing things.

The terms of the treaty state that settlement B provides guards to merchants as they transfer goods to different places, they help take out bandits in settlement As territories, help defend settlement A, and allow settlement A members free passage to settlement B and its territories. As long as settlement B does that settlement B gets XXX gear monthly plus a 30% bulk discount on any further goods not to exceed xxxxx amount. In addition Settlement B will gain two PoIs in the hexes near settlement A, however settlement A will be the head person of those PoIs. In addition settlement A will provide settlement B with YY training.

So the terms of the treaty will NOT be watched by the game. its up to the settlements to determine if the treaties are being held to and to enforce those treaties.

What then would the alliance system do?

1) Allow settlements access to each others training. So you put say settlement A members can use 50xp worth of training per month

2) Allow settlements to defend each other without getting flagged. So if settlement A gets war declared on it then settlement B members can get involved and they will not be flagged for killing unflagged targets. The other side of this is that settlement B members are also lawful targets of the people attacking settlement A.

3) Allow exemptions to NBSI policies. So if settlement B has a NBSI policy they can make a blanket expemption to settlement A as part of the treaty.

So while the system wouldnt watch to see if the settlements are abiding by the treaty, it allows them to have a system to easily allow certain privileges and exemptions that normally would not be allowed outside of settlement membership.

Goblin Squad Member

Yes, I agree that it will likely be common for people to draw up terms which can't be handled by the in-game mechanics. I'd like the mechanics to cover the broad, important, and easily measured things (red/blue status, auto-joining wars, tax rates) and leave the more complicated details out of mechanics. You could make a hugely complex system here, with an almost infinite space for possibilities for what can be included in inter-settlement contracts. I'd rather they keep it simple so they can spend more time elsewhere.

101 to 138 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Alliances All Messageboards

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