A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

751 to 800 of 1,127 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

@GrumpyMel, did you see this?

Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.

Yes, and it's possible that may be the way they end up addressing it, but it makes the game very unwelcoming to legitimate newbies or companies starting out/recovering from loss in the Settlement game...especialy if some predictions about the difficulty in finding settlements willing to accept non-hardcore players prove true.

Overall, I think it's a bad approach. Much better to allow Settlement Owners to flag individuals as tresspassers within thier territory. If that's a strain on system resources, which is the only reason I can imagine GW objecting to it from a practical standpoint, they could simply require law enforcment to see and target the individual and put it on a timer. That should dramaticaly reduce the number of legacy names they need to store and it makes it more of a "I'm the sheriff here, I see you hanging around upto no good. You have 15 minutes to get out of Dodge." type thing.

If I am hearing you correctly, you are advocating that local law enforcement has an "get out of dodge option" with a 15 minute time. Everyone jumped me for a similar idea, only mine was only restricted to "good" communities. I have no problem for Evil communities to be NBSI.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Grumpy Mel,

That is a perfect assessment of how the typical bandit company will work or be used. If they are not actually alts, they will be unaffiliated in the eyes of the game mechanics.

There are ways to be unaffiliated and not be in an NPC settlement. It is not known if even Ryan sees that.

Ryan Dancey's quote that Nihimon posted, does not really apply to what you have stated in your post. Or, it shows that Ryan does not fully understand the typical operations if bandit groups, as you have explained in your post.

Multiple layered systems, as GW is trying to develop, also have multiple opportunities for loopholes. Whether they know of these loopholes and are not pointing to them or they are not aware of them, remains to be seen.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

So like I said, two exiles could commit crimes against each other and there woukd be no effect on the settlement corruption / unrest scale.

Since company members can defend other company members, without penalty, once a company ends up in thus exile list they can head to that settlement zone. They hunt down other exiles, or even arrange to meet there and now they have a consequence free mosh pit.

Now that may not have a mechanical effect on the settlement DI, but the reputation of the settlement hex would be that the place runs red in rivers of blood.

Except that Exile/Tresspasser wouldn't neccesarly make them HOSTILE to ANY individual....it could simply make them HOSTILE to settlement MEMBERS/LAW Enforcment/Millitary. You'd also run into the same exact issue with CRIMINALS.

Exile/Tresspasser really needs to work consistantly with the same rules of engagement for any other criminal.

The whole corruption thing needs a little more baking, since it becomes pretty easy to exploit.

My suggestion is that rather then having someone engage in criminal activity (which could include tresspassing/exile) fire off corruption. It starts a TIMER on the character which when it counts down to 0 will kick off a corruption tick but that the TIMER gets DELETED whenever the individual leaves the territory, logs off or gets killed.

This methodology eliminates a whole host of exploits such as SPAMMING, BORDER HOPPING, LOGGING, etc and better represents what "corruption" generaly is understood to be...which is not that crime happens but that the authorties are unwilling or unable to respond to crime.

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

@GrumpyMel, did you see this?

Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.

Yes, and it's possible that may be the way they end up addressing it, but it makes the game very unwelcoming to legitimate newbies or companies starting out/recovering from loss in the Settlement game...especialy if some predictions about the difficulty in finding settlements willing to accept non-hardcore players prove true.

Overall, I think it's a bad approach. Much better to allow Settlement Owners to flag individuals as tresspassers within thier territory. If that's a strain on system resources, which is the only reason I can imagine GW objecting to it from a practical standpoint, they could simply require law enforcment to see and target the individual and put it on a timer. That should dramaticaly reduce the number of legacy names they need to store and it makes it more of a "I'm the sheriff here, I see you hanging around upto no good. You have 15 minutes to get out of Dodge." type thing.

If I am hearing you correctly, you are advocating that local law enforcement has an "get out of dodge option" with a 15 minute time. Everyone jumped me for a similar idea, only mine was only restricted to "good" communities. I have no problem for Evil communities to be NBSI.

You are hearing me correctly...and I don't see why anyone would jump on you for it, it addresses a significant mechanical and practical need. My only point of difference is that I don't see why it should be restricted on the Good-Evil Alignment Axis....maybe Law-Chaos but I wouldn't even argue there. Law Enforcment of pretty much any Alignment would have a viable usage case for it while fitting within what the Alignments generaly are supposed to mean.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

@GrumpyMel, did you see this?

Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.

Yes, and it's possible that may be the way they end up addressing it, but it makes the game very unwelcoming to legitimate newbies or companies starting out/recovering from loss in the Settlement game...especialy if some predictions about the difficulty in finding settlements willing to accept non-hardcore players prove true.

Overall, I think it's a bad approach. Much better to allow Settlement Owners to flag individuals as tresspassers within thier territory. If that's a strain on system resources, which is the only reason I can imagine GW objecting to it from a practical standpoint, they could simply require law enforcment to see and target the individual and put it on a timer. That should dramaticaly reduce the number of legacy names they need to store and it makes it more of a "I'm the sheriff here, I see you hanging around upto no good. You have 15 minutes to get out of Dodge." type thing.

If I am hearing you correctly, you are advocating that local law enforcement has an "get out of dodge option" with a 15 minute time. Everyone jumped me for a similar idea, only mine was only restricted to "good" communities. I have no problem for Evil communities to be NBSI.
You are hearing me correctly...and I don't see why anyone would jump on you for it, it addresses a significant mechanical and practical need. My only point of difference is that I don't see why it should be restricted on the Good-Evil Alignment Axis....maybe Law-Chaos but I wouldn't even argue there. Law Enforcment of pretty much any Alignment would have a viable usage case for it while fitting within what the...

I think that my argument was that if a good aligned law enforcement official or such would first have to give the trespasser the option to leave before caving in his skull. However, my whole argument hinged on whether or not those settlement alignments gave better bonuses than other alignments. But since it is pretty much agreed on that alignments won't be used that way and that alignment bonuses from declaring a settlement LG of NG will be hard to achieve or maintain, most of my arguments are irrelevant right now.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

So like I said, two exiles could commit crimes against each other and there woukd be no effect on the settlement corruption / unrest scale.

Since company members can defend other company members, without penalty, once a company ends up in thus exile list they can head to that settlement zone. They hunt down other exiles, or even arrange to meet there and now they have a consequence free mosh pit.

Now that may not have a mechanical effect on the settlement DI, but the reputation of the settlement hex would be that the place runs red in rivers of blood.

Except that Exile/Tresspasser wouldn't neccesarly make them HOSTILE to ANY individual....it could simply make them HOSTILE to settlement MEMBERS/LAW Enforcment/Millitary. You'd also run into the same exact issue with CRIMINALS.

Exile/Tresspasser really needs to work consistantly with the same rules of engagement for any other criminal.

The whole corruption thing needs a little more baking, since it becomes pretty easy to exploit.

My suggestion is that rather then having someone engage in criminal activity (which could include tresspassing/exile) fire off corruption. It starts a TIMER on the character which when it counts down to 0 will kick off a corruption tick but that the TIMER gets DELETED whenever the individual leaves the territory, logs off or gets killed.

This methodology eliminates a whole host of exploits such as SPAMMING, BORDER HOPPING, LOGGING, etc and better represents what "corruption" generaly is understood to be...which is not that crime happens but that the authorties are unwilling or unable to respond to crime.

I agree with this, but thus is not how the Exile mechanic was presented. The differences, and they are major is that:

1. You only get the trespasser flag by having low reputation.

2. You only get the Criminal Flag by committing a crime.

The Exile mechanic was being proposed to attach those flags without the individually having actively done anything to warrant them.

Further, the exile mechanic allowed for all viewers to see the exiled individual as hostile.

Finally, the Exile mechanic was seen by Tork Shaw to be circumventing the feud system. No he did not say "You are circumventing the system", but when he said "Why don't you just use Feuds?" A circumventing state is implied.

What you are suggesting might very well be what they have as part of the Marshal / Sheriff title position.

I would actually like that to be expanded to allow for more than one character per settlement. I would also like to see the ability of a Marshal to have a number of Deputies, based in the Marshal's skill level. Finally, I think the Marshal should function like a Field Commander in EvE, where based on levels he grants higher tier buffs to his Deputies.

As a bandit I'd much prefer to have to face a skilled and dedicated adversary than a game mechanic that requires nothing to use and is infallible.

CEO, Goblinworks

GrumpyMel wrote:
Lets be perfectly clear about how MOST Bandits/Brigands will operate.

There's a continent's worth of assumptions in this post, many of which are unlikely to prove true.

Quote:

- Most bandits/brigands WILL be members of the NPC Starter Settlements so no way to declare WAR upon them (at any expense) and so that they will be able to use legitimate newbies as cover for thier operations.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT be members of any company so there will be no way to feud them (at any expense) and no way to hold them accountable for thier actions.

Assumptions:

Members of NPC Settlements can be members of Companies

Members of NPC Settlements will be able to soulbind to points other than the NPC Settlement for resurrection. Dying halfway across the map from where you soulbind will be a pretty big limitation on how effective a bandit can be.

Members of NPC Settlements will be able to make Hideouts.

Members of NPC Settlements will be able to train and use exotic character abilities linked to maximizing banditry operations.

CEO, Goblinworks

Bluddwolf wrote:
There are ways to be unaffiliated and not be in an NPC settlement. It is not known if even Ryan sees that.

Here's the game mechanic:

At character creation, you're assigned to an NPC Settlement.

You can change NPC Settlements based on ... factors.

If you get accepted by a PC Settlement you can change to that PC Settlement.

You can leave a PC Settlement and join an NPC Settlement based on ... factors.

You can switch PC Settlements if a different PC Settlement offers you membership and you accept.

If you get kicked out of a PC Settlement, or a PC Settlement gets destroyed, you get assigned to an NPC Settlement based on ... factors.

So how does a character avoid being either a member of a PC or an NPC Settlement?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Lets be perfectly clear about how MOST Bandits/Brigands will operate.

There's a continent's worth of assumptions in this post, many of which are unlikely to prove true.

Quote:

- Most bandits/brigands WILL be members of the NPC Starter Settlements so no way to declare WAR upon them (at any expense) and so that they will be able to use legitimate newbies as cover for thier operations.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT be members of any company so there will be no way to feud them (at any expense) and no way to hold them accountable for thier actions.

Assumptions:

Members of NPC Settlements can be members of Companies

Members of NPC Settlements will be able to soulbind to points other than the NPC Settlement for resurrection. Dying halfway across the map from where you soulbind will be a pretty big limitation on how effective a bandit can be.

Members of NPC Settlements will be able to make Hideouts.

Members of NPC Settlements will be able to train and use exotic character abilities linked to maximizing banditry operations.

The first assumption I also assumed.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just turn them into Goblins and let them build their Goblin towns.

Goblin Squad Member

To be fair to Grumpy Mel's assessment and assumptions, they are based on what he feels "most bandits" will do or be (alts).

I agree with him that many players will play the role of bandit with alts. They may do this just to have the fun and adventure of it, but not dedicate too many resources to it (skill points). These bandit characters won't need access to top tier training, or be attached to PC settlements, they are purely for entertainment.

Other players will have a bandit character as their main (/raises hand). Many of Grumoy Mel's assumptions do not apply. I will need to have a settlement that supports me, even u directly, and I will likely use alts to do the things my main can not do. It is also to my own benefit to have as high a reputation as possible, and to utilize the feud, raiding, faction, war and SAD systems to the fullest extent. Being a Mercenary - Bandit will afford me and my ilk the greatest opportunities to engage in banditry within those systems.

Unlike the examples Grumpy Mel mentioned, our keys tool will be the feud. The feud system is all the better if we harass a company or settlement into waging a feud against us. That will cost us less or nothing in influence, and give us free of rep. and alignment consequences targets.

Some players may be part time bandits ( As the Guide to the River Kingdoms) suggests. These characters will be either mains or alts that play most of their time as your run of the mill adventuring types, in other companies and sponsored by a settlement. But, every once in a while they form up junto an ad hoc company, organized in the meta game, and go on a spree of banditry. They can then, after a few days if fun and adventure, go back to their usual mundane lives.

A fourth possibility is that of a Privateer. These bandits are settlement sponsored and serve their settlement the same as any other. They only target the rivals and enemies of their settlement and use exclusively, feuds, wars, faction (if their settlement has one) and SADs.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
There are ways to be unaffiliated and not be in an NPC settlement. It is not known if even Ryan sees that.

Here's the game mechanic:

At character creation, you're assigned to an NPC Settlement.

You can change NPC Settlements based on ... factors.

If you get accepted by a PC Settlement you can change to that PC Settlement.

You can leave a PC Settlement and join an NPC Settlement based on ... factors.

You can switch PC Settlements if a different PC Settlement offers you membership and you accept.

If you get kicked out of a PC Settlement, or a PC Settlement gets destroyed, you get assigned to an NPC Settlement based on ... factors.

So how does a character avoid being either a member of a PC or an NPC Settlement?

They don't, a bandit company could be a Ad Hoc made up of characters from other companies and more than one PC settlement. The actual "Bandit Company" operates outside of the knowledge of the system, by organizing outside of the GW/ Paizo forums and using TS / VOIP to communicate while in game.

I suspect many of the Assassin companies to operate in the same way. So we would be technically unaffiliated to the actual Bandit Company or Assassin Company.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:

[

Assumptions:

Members of NPC Settlements can be members of Companies

Sorry this is now an assumption? It seemed fairly clear from the blog that is must be possible

From join together with the band blog

"Companies serve as the instrument by which groups of players actually gain control of hexes in Pathfinder Online and enjoy a level of property ownership and management. A company that establishes control of a potential settlement hex by defeating its monstrous denizens can spend influence to found a settlement there."

Now it is difficult to see how people are going to be able to set up settlements according to how your blog suggests it is going to happen without being a member of a company.

In addition if NPC settlement members cannot be members of companies that suggests that for most of EE (as you have suggested that settlements will not come in till late in the process) that there will be no player organizations.

CEO, Goblinworks

Bluddwolf wrote:
I suspect many of the Assassin companies to operate in the same way. So we would be technically unaffiliated to the actual Bandit Company or Assassin Company.

I get the fact that you can ad hoc a group of characters without any in-game affiliations. I read your original post as implying that you thought you could be in a Company without being in a Settlement.

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Assumptions:

Members of NPC Settlements can be members of Companies
Sorry this is now an assumption? It seemed fairly clear from the blog that is must be possible

The original PC Settlements will be seeded via the Guild Land Rush promotion. So it is possible that we will not allow NPC Settlement members to form Companies; but as I said, that's an assumption, not a fact.

It's clear that we need to carefully craft the rights & responsibilities of NPC Settlements to reflect their nature - as temporary refuges for new characters or displaced characters before or between periods of affiliation with a PC Settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I suspect many of the Assassin companies to operate in the same way. So we would be technically unaffiliated to the actual Bandit Company or Assassin Company.
I get the fact that you can ad hoc a group of characters without any in-game affiliations. I read your original post as implying that you thought you could be in a Company without being in a Settlement.

Then my original post was not clear enough. It was in fact eluding to the use of ad hocs. That does require a good deal of subterfuge to run a shadow organization such as that, but I'm sure some are willing to do that.

It reality depends on how difficult both the game mechanics and the player community make it to be a main character bandit company.

Of the four possibilities I mentioned in another thread, the Privateer model is likely mist palatable for the community to accept as not being total scum. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind being scum, as long as I can have some flare doing so, and of course some fun and adventure as well.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
There are ways to be unaffiliated and not be in an NPC settlement. It is not known if even Ryan sees that.

Here's the game mechanic:

At character creation, you're assigned to an NPC Settlement.

You can change NPC Settlements based on ... factors.

If you get accepted by a PC Settlement you can change to that PC Settlement.

You can leave a PC Settlement and join an NPC Settlement based on ... factors.

You can switch PC Settlements if a different PC Settlement offers you membership and you accept.

If you get kicked out of a PC Settlement, or a PC Settlement gets destroyed, you get assigned to an NPC Settlement based on ... factors.

So how does a character avoid being either a member of a PC or an NPC Settlement?

They don't, a bandit company could be a Ad Hoc made up of characters from other companies and more than one PC settlement. The actual "Bandit Company" operates outside of the knowledge of the system, by organizing outside of the GW/ Paizo forums and using TS / VOIP to communicate while in game.

I suspect many of the Assassin companies to operate in the same way. So we would be technically unaffiliated to the actual Bandit Company or Assassin Company.

There's a difference between "Unaffiliated" and "Affiliated with multiple settlements."

When each of your settlements' leaders gets a nicely phrased message saying "Your citizen NotBluddwolf was out murdering yesterday. Do you allow your citizens to do that kind of thing?" and they must provide some answer (Failing to respond or take any action IS an answer), what do you think they will say?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
what do you think they will say?

"Why, he's one of our finest, most upstanding citizens."

Goblin Squad Member

Everyone needs their attack dog.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
what do you think they will say?
"Why, he's one of our finest, most upstanding citizens."

Oh, so he's affiliated with you? I'll make sure to share that information with the people who object to the behavior you encourage in your citizens, and in a few days we will have some meaningful interaction with you if his behavior doesn't improve.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
When each of your settlements' leaders gets a nicely phrased message saying "Your citizen NotBluddwolf was out murdering yesterday. Do you allow your citizens to do that kind of thing?" and they must provide some answer (Failing to respond or take any action IS an answer), what do you think they will say?

You can't be serious. By what tracking system is every character's actions going to be recorded and then reported to settlement leaders?

What makes you think settlements won't be sending out raiding parties to do just that?

This game us about settlement conflict and dominance. We don't have 7000 star systems to spread out into. Settlements are comparatively on top of each other and they are competing for resources. There will be a near continuous state of feud and warfare at many locations simultaneously.

Ryan has said on numerous occasions, we are going to die often in PFO. You can spend all the time you like writing PMs, I'd rather get back to the action.

Hey, try sending that letter to a group like Goonswarm. You think they'll turn to their member and reprimand him/her for killing someone? Forget about the Goons, ask Steelwing if his group will care? Golgotha? I hope someone sends me a pm like that, I'll turn that over to the Goodfellow to handle. Add a whole new meaning of "Return to Sender" will be realized.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After awhile, the names of those that beat you in PVP start to add up. You can take it all personally (if you want) and have a really miserable time, or you can focus your energy and time on people that really are meaningful for meaningful reasons.

It really isn't that bad to lose sometimes if you prepare (skill or friends with skills) and win some of those times too. That is much easier than it seems. Dying, while frustrating as hell (in the moment) is usually nothing more than an inconvenience. Winning, especially against a meaningful foe, is a legal high that is right up there with the best of experiences.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Bringslite

That is exactly correct. I fully expect to lose fights, especially if we are raiding in settlement hexes. There we will not only have to deal with the initial NPC guards, but also any PCs that get involved, and then perhaps an additional group of NPC wardens.

I don't anticipate the path of banditry and raiding will be an easy one, only an adventurous one. I'd rather fight and die trying to steal a sack of gold, then spend the same time harvesting 5 sacks of gold.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
what do you think they will say?
"Why, he's one of our finest, most upstanding citizens."

Actually I'd rather they say, "He's one of our top earners", but "Upstanding" could very well mean the same thing.

I have little doubt there will rise a settlement of bandits, thieves and assassins.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
what do you think they will say?
"Why, he's one of our finest, most upstanding citizens."

Actually I'd rather they say, "He's one of our top earners", but "Upstanding" could very well mean the same thing.

I have little doubt there will rise a settlement of bandits, thieves and assassins.

It seems that may be inevitable. That is, for those that want their mains to be the bandit role that they actually want to play and get the most enjoyment from.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
When each of your settlements' leaders gets a nicely phrased message saying "Your citizen NotBluddwolf was out murdering yesterday. Do you allow your citizens to do that kind of thing?" and they must provide some answer (Failing to respond or take any action IS an answer), what do you think they will say?

You can't be serious. By what tracking system is every character's actions going to be recorded and then reported to settlement leaders?

I had assumed DeciusBrutus had meant this from a political pressure point of view.

Bob is a member of a large settlement that is 'good' but aggressive, and witnesses Gnnh the half orc kill a bunch of innocent merchants. Bob approaches Gnnh's settlement and uses subtle threats as a means of social pressure for that settlement to take action against Gnnh.

I really hope this type of social interaction happens! I also hope that it is player initiated and that there is no automated message/killboard type of system that tracks this sort of stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
So how does a character avoid being either a member of a PC or an NPC Settlement?
They don't, a bandit company could be a Ad Hoc made up of characters from other companies and more than one PC settlement. The actual "Bandit Company" operates outside of the knowledge of the system, by organizing outside of the GW/ Paizo forums and using TS / VOIP to communicate while in game.

So the bandit group isn't really/officially a company. It earns no Influence (so cannot declare feuds). Its members belong to a number of different companies and more than one settlement.

A counter-bandit company encounters them. Couldn't the counter-bandits open a feud against one of the (not-present) companies (maybe the most-distant), then attack the 1 bandit that belongs to that company? Do the rest of the bandits have no right to defend their party member when he's attacked in a feud? Just wargaming this out.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
So how does a character avoid being either a member of a PC or an NPC Settlement?
They don't, a bandit company could be a Ad Hoc made up of characters from other companies and more than one PC settlement. The actual "Bandit Company" operates outside of the knowledge of the system, by organizing outside of the GW/ Paizo forums and using TS / VOIP to communicate while in game.

So the bandit group isn't really/officially a company. It earns no Influence (so cannot declare feuds). Its members belong to a number of different companies and more than one settlement.

A counter-bandit company encounters them. Couldn't the counter-bandits open a feud against one of the (not-present) companies (maybe the most-distant), then attack the 1 bandit that belongs to that company? Do the rest of the bandits have no right to defend their party member when he's attacked in a feud? Just wargaming this out.

Good question. How is all of this affected in a mixed group of affiliated (but separately) and non affiliated, that are "partied"? Is it basically like a mutual defense pact for individual characters?

The did write that they are working out a hierarchy of hostility.

Goblin Squad Member

I would think that it would happen like this:

1. Feud declared against 1 of the mixed group.
2. Bandit company attacks the one guy, gaining the Attacker flag.
3. Mixed group is free to defend their comrade against the attackers, gaining the Involved flag.
4. Nobody takes penalties in the ensuing fight.

Of course, the mixed group could decide to just cut losses, let the one feuded guy die, and move on without becoming Involved (unless you automatically become Involved when a person you're grouping with is attacked).

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I'd rather fight and die trying to steal a sack of gold, then spend the same time harvesting 5 sacks of gold.

Then/than might be a grammatical pet peeve but it makes a big difference in what you're trying to say there.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I'd rather fight and die trying to steal a sack of gold, then spend the same time harvesting 5 sacks of gold.
Then/than might be a grammatical pet peeve but it makes a big difference in what you're trying to say there.

"Than" when making comparisons, "Then" when discussing time or sequence. Perfection is not a goal of mine, although I do go back and edit sometimes.

If and of are my most frequent mistakes because the I and the o are next to each other and I have big hands and fat fingers. Not like Mickey Mouse glove like hands, but still big.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Assumptions:

Members of NPC Settlements can be members of Companies
Sorry this is now an assumption? It seemed fairly clear from the blog that is must be possible

The original PC Settlements will be seeded via the Guild Land Rush promotion. So it is possible that we will not allow NPC Settlement members to form Companies; but as I said, that's an assumption, not a fact.

It's clear that we need to carefully craft the rights & responsibilities of NPC Settlements to reflect their nature - as temporary refuges for new characters or displaced characters before or between periods of affiliation with a PC Settlement.

So if we are going with the assumption that Companies cannot be part of NPC settlements...

What happens to a company that leaves a PC settlement? Will it just auto disband?

I have to go with... If a company cannot be part of an NPC settlement, then that is not a completely thought out idea.

Goblin Squad Member

The descriptions of companies have always included the stipulation "The company may become sponsored by a settlement".

That requires the company as an entity can exist without attachment to a settlement (further evidenced by a character with three company memberships but only one sponsored).

How can NPC settlement leadership "decide" to sponsor a player character company?

There is a possible state where characters can be members of a settlement, and members of a company, but that company is unsponsored and therefore not a part of the settlement.

Is that thought out enough?

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

The descriptions of companies have always included the stipulation "The company may become sponsored by a settlement".

That requires the company as an entity can exist without attachment to a settlement (further evidenced by a character with three company memberships but only one sponsored).

How can NPC settlement leadership "decide" to sponsor a player character company?

There is a possible state where characters can be members of a settlement, and members of a company, but that company is unsponsored and therefore not a part of the settlement.

Is that thought out enough?

Yeah, and contradictory. LOL

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
By what tracking system is every character's actions going to be recorded and then reported to settlement leaders?

It won't ever be "every character", but T7V's information-gathering-and-dissemination mission could easily encompass a database of observations and reports on individual characters. There's no doubt there'll be efforts to obscure things by false reporting of anecdote and rumour, but proper data-management techniques should allow the signal to shine through the noise.

Perhaps T7V can begin to sell services as a sort of reputation clearing-house, going beyond the system-generated number :-).

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
How can NPC settlement leadership "decide" to sponsor a player character company?

The "decision" might be automatic, based on ...factors. So maybe if the company doesn't meet some criteria for that settlement, they won't be sponsored.

Proxima Sin wrote:
There is a possible state where characters can be members of a settlement, and members of a company, but that company is unsponsored and therefore not a part of the settlement.

That may be true. We have been told very, very little about the unchartered companies. Do they accumulate Influence? Can they be feuded? Can they launch feuds? Might a character that only belongs to an unchartered company effectively be "unaffiliated"?

Goblin Squad Member

Well apparently there is no such thing as an unchartered company. Then again, its all an assumption.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not "unchartered", the charter is what defines a company. Unsponsored by a player settlement. Sponsored or not every company can accumulate influence, feud and be feuded; none of that requires the company to have any attachment to any settlement. A merc company can be a fully official company feuding all the time, but roaming and never being tied to a particular settlement.

There's the mercantile company whose members are from four different settlements and the only foreign traders allowed into each of those four settlements (for security reasons) are members of that approved company. The company DOES have a charter (to exist recognized by the game as an entity) and has an understanding with the settlement leadership but it is not officially SPONSORED by any of the four settlements that it draws members from and trades in.

Each character can be in up to three companies but only one sponsored (because sponsorship of that company will convey membership in the sponsoring settlement). That leaves the potential for there to be up to two times more unsponsored companies operating and feuding than sponsored ones.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
A merc company can be a fully official company feuding all the time, but roaming and never being tied to a particular settlement.

This is what I am looking to do. With what Ryan said above, it may or may not be possible.

If not, oh well, We will create a settlement of DOOM.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Assumptions:

Members of NPC Settlements can be members of Companies
Sorry this is now an assumption? It seemed fairly clear from the blog that is must be possible

The original PC Settlements will be seeded via the Guild Land Rush promotion. So it is possible that we will not allow NPC Settlement members to form Companies; but as I said, that's an assumption, not a fact.

It's clear that we need to carefully craft the rights & responsibilities of NPC Settlements to reflect their nature - as temporary refuges for new characters or displaced characters before or between periods of affiliation with a PC Settlement.

I believe the number of unintended consequences to requiring players to members of PC settlements before they form a company may overwhelm the benefit of not allowing NPC settlement players to do so.

1) What would happen to 'displaced' companies? Do they automatically dissolve? If they do not, are they still able to recruit before the join a new PC settlement? If these allowances are not established properly, the very social structure of the game risks being easily destroyed and dismantled.

2) Finding the right settlement for yourself or your desired company can be difficult and time-consuming. We're going to see a lot of folks trying to rush into settlements that may be poor choices for them just so that they can form their company.

3) If a large number of settlements adopt similar strict invitation and interview processes as I hear about the goes on in EvE, then a lot of players are going to find the game not worth their time because they cannot advance without going through arduous processes.

4) Large Empire Lockdowns could occur if powerful, security minded nations grab most of the land and attempt heavy-handed control over who gets to try to form companies or which companies get to try to start their own settlement.

A number of these systems can be designed around. But I think the biggest problem is that if a group of ten players cannot form their own company and get started without appealing to other players to allow them to do so, then those ten players are going to be likely to go create their guild in another game.

Goblin Squad Member

Couldnt have said it better myself Lifedragon.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
...if a group of ten players cannot form their own company and get started without appealing to other players to allow them to do so, then those ten players are going to be likely to go create their guild in another game.

I think this is a strong point.

I do think that there should be some mechanism where such starter companies can later be absorbed into a larger company without the total loss of all previously accumulated Influence (depending on the larger company's caps, of course). I think that would encourage some consolidation of companies.

Proxima Sin wrote:
Sponsored or not every company can accumulate influence, feud and be feuded; none of that requires the company to have any attachment to any settlement.

I don't think we've ever been told that much about unsponsored companies.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:


I do think that there should be some mechanism where such starter companies can later be absorbed into a larger company without the total loss of all previously accumulated Influence (depending on the larger company's caps, of course). I think that would encourage some consolidation of companies.

While I agree on this being a useful mechanic, I do not necessarily see the relevance to the topic at hand. Company sizes are ideally, according to last dev postings, 10 to 50 (roughly) people in size. Larger than a party, but not necessarily massive. Though they can get larger than that, the goal is to promote these more manageable sizes at the company level.

Ultimately, the idea is to provide incentive for these companies to move from an NPC settlement to a PC settlement. And Influence may be just the way to do so. Something as small as Companies that belong to PC Settlements gain influence 10% faster than Companies that belong to NPC Settlements. This makes NPC settlement companies a viable way to get started, but also provides an enticing lure to move yourself to a PC Settlement to maximize your potential.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's what I read about companies. Sponsorship was a purely optional thing. It makes the company members also members of the settlement so it's a big step in the development of the company, but not the catalyst of it.

Tork Shaw, Blog 8Jan2014 wrote:
A company that owns a PoI can link it to a settlement by becoming sponsored.

Being a fully operational company unsponsored by any settlement sure seems possible from that information.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

While I agree on this being a useful mechanic, I do not necessarily see the relevance to the topic at hand. Company sizes are ideally, according to last dev postings, 10 to 50 (roughly) people in size. Larger than a party, but not necessarily massive. Though they can get larger than that, the goal is to promote these more manageable sizes at the company level.

Ultimately, the idea is to provide incentive for these companies to move from an NPC settlement to a PC settlement. And Influence may be just the way to do so. Something as small as Companies that belong to PC Settlements gain influence 10% faster than Companies that belong to NPC Settlements. This makes NPC settlement companies a viable way to get started, but also provides an enticing lure to move yourself to a PC Settlement to maximize your potential.

As players leave the game, some 10-character companies will become 4- and 5-character companies. As the players are encouraged to join settlements, they expand their circle of contacts. At some point those settlements might be better served with a 20-character company than four 5-character companies. At some point the players are ready to disband and join another company, but potential loss of the accumulated influence might be a drag on taking that step, that's all.

I think your point of incentives is good; Bringslight had an idea of Rep gain being tied on settlement or company membership - just a 10% gain like you say is an encouragement towards desired groupings.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:


I think your point of incentives is good; Bringslight had an idea of Rep gain being tied on settlement or company membership - just a 10% gain like you say is an encouragement towards desired groupings.

I think it makes sense to use both approaches. You have Rep at an individual level. 10% bonus if you join either a company or a PC settlement (or maybe 5% for each). Then the influence bonus works at the organizational level for that extra push. Companies that may not be concerned about member reputation, either because they all keep good reps by default or because they don't care about reputation at all for whatever reason, would still be incentivized to move.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

That's what I read about companies. Sponsorship was a purely optional thing. It makes the company members also members of the settlement so it's a big step in the development of the company, but not the catalyst of it.

Tork Shaw, Blog 8Jan2014 wrote:
A company that owns a PoI can link it to a settlement by becoming sponsored.
Being a fully operational company unsponsored by any settlement sure seems possible from that information.

Hmm... I wonder where we got the Assumptions Ryan was referring to from... Oh thats right, from them.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

That's what I read about companies. Sponsorship was a purely optional thing. It makes the company members also members of the settlement so it's a big step in the development of the company, but not the catalyst of it.

Tork Shaw, Blog 8Jan2014 wrote:
A company that owns a PoI can link it to a settlement by becoming sponsored.
Being a fully operational company unsponsored by any settlement sure seems possible from that information.

I agree. It seems possible. And it should be up to companies if they want to involve themselves with building a settlement. From what I have heard from other threads, most groups would want the bonuses of having a settlement since it is going to be beneficial to their skills and crafting.

Also, from a prospective bandit's point of view...having a place we can call home with big frickin walls as opposed to a cave seems more inviting once our enemies come a'knockin. But hey, I go with the flow.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

That's what I read about companies. Sponsorship was a purely optional thing. It makes the company members also members of the settlement so it's a big step in the development of the company, but not the catalyst of it.

Tork Shaw, Blog 8Jan2014 wrote:
A company that owns a PoI can link it to a settlement by becoming sponsored.
Being a fully operational company unsponsored by any settlement sure seems possible from that information.

I also take this to mean that if a company is effectively running a POI and it's two Outposts, that a settlement may have good reason to sponsor that company / POI.

The settlement, if it has the will to do so and the force to accomplish it, may also decide to attempt to capture the POI and turn it and its outposts over to its own.

Either way it does appear that there are some supports for unaffiliated companies to engage in meaningful human interactions. They also can participate in the settlement vs. settlement conflicts and intrigues.

This along with Ryan's recent comments about the loss of settlements and their impact on a character's abilities / skills, and it is not all that daunting a task to remain unaffiliated. Certainly not to fall back into that status, which mercenaries might find to be a frequent condition.

751 to 800 of 1,127 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.