Goblin Squad Member
|
I figured as much. Sigh.
Well if anyone is interested in David Graeber's 5,000 years of debt, just pm me and we can figure out a way to send you the .pdf
Debt: The First 5000 Years - Wikipedia
No, thanks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that has got to be the worst summary I have ever seen. haha xDTo be honest, just hearing the title was enough for my intuition to tell me it was probably radical, anti-Capitalist, anti-Semitic claptrap.
I dislike this notion that Debt and Capitalism are one in the same. I could imagine free market economies operating without debt. It would look quite a bit different than what we have today, and I could not say if it would be better or worse. It is more about which set of advantages and disadvantages you would prefer to live with.
I missed the parts that were anti-Semitic portions in the wiki. Or how being anti-capitalist automatically makes it claptrap. That seems awfully dismissive. Not that I wish to argue economics, but no system is perfect and a closed mind makes it harder to evaluate whether something is an improvement or a detraction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ideally a Kingdom will have Settlement A train in certain types of field. Settlement B in another type and Settlement C in what is left over. Any extra settlements will provide more training slots. So if Settlement A falls, they can go to the similar Settlement D to train while they gather resources and form a strategy to retake Settlement A.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that each settlement can only have a finite number of buildings, regardless of how much territory they claim.There will need to be argreements between settlements to obtain top flight training. There will not be any big city that has it all.
I agree that no settlement will have all the best training; however, I'd always assumed that the stuff you can't include in your settlement is simply not available to you. As in, until you move settlements or your settlement builds the stuff for a particular type of training, you cannot train it. Don't know that for sure, but I'm willing to bet that's how it'll work in EE.
I still hope that settlements have to make meaningful decisions on which sectors they want the best training in, and which ones they are willing to cut back on. It seems like a moot point if you can use training from multiple settlements to give your settlement citizens all the training anyways.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind that each settlement can only have a finite number of buildings, regardless of how much territory they claim.There will need to be argreements between settlements to obtain top flight training. There will not be any big city that has it all.
I agree that no settlement will have all the best training; however, I'd always assumed that the stuff you can't include in your settlement is simply not available to you. As in, until you move settlements or your settlement builds the stuff for a particular type of training, you cannot train it. Don't know that for sure, but I'm willing to bet that's how it'll work in EE.
I still hope that settlements have to make meaningful decisions on which sectors they want the best training in, and which ones they are willing to cut back on. It seems like a moot point if you can use training from multiple settlements to give your settlement citizens all the training anyways.
Do you feel that way about the multiple settlements of a nation, or just separate settlements and training outside of your own?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel that way even about settlements as a nation sharing training. If they can share the training than choosing what training to build will be a non-issue; whatever you don't choose to build here you choose to build in another settlement, and then everybody can share the training so it's as if they're all one big settlement and there isn't really any choice being made.
Then again, maybe that would happen anyways with people simply temporarily joining settlements for training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It may turn out that way. Speculating here:
I would like to see some of the advantages of a kingdom/nation to be shared training between settlements and expanded opportunities for specialized high level training of different types.
There has been mention of highly increasing upkeep for multi settlement nations. There is much more difficulty in security (at all levels) the larger you get. It will probably become more and more of a narrow amount of skill sets that any single structure can offer as the skill levels get higher end. Kingdom/nations will have larger populations and so will need to support more variety of characters. They will still be limited a bit for exotic alignment skills. We certainly wouldn't want a KINGDOM to only be able to offer the highest possible training to Wizards and Fighters, for instance. Each settlement has a limited number of lots for buildings. Especially the larger (assumption) structures that offer the high end goodies. I imagine that there will be a terrific number of skill trees in a few years with most having unique high end exotic skills at the top.
It would be nice if there were some incentive to form kingdoms, beyond just taking longer or more effort to wipe out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is going to be "new" settlements/nations not getting any members. It is a hallmark of MMOs that the big factions (TEO, L7V, Pax and co. no offense meant) get bigger and the small factions get smaller. People want to be where all the super glory is, and places like IGN and whatnot only focus on telling the stories of those big factions, because that is where the big battles and world-scale political manuevers take place. Small guilds get no represntation. It happened to me twice in Dragon's Prophet and once in Planetside 2. We had an IGN person join up for like a week, then she left saying "I really loved this guild, and you guys are all hilarious, but this just isn't the sort of story that works on IGN."
Stolen from another thread, but I think this would be an excellent topic for discussion in this thread. Speaking for TEO as a large guild (at least for now in comparison to other known entities) I think it is well within our power to find reasons to support the smaller guilds without trying to play the recruitment and absorption game. There are a number of guilds here that express some portions of TEO's ideologies without necessarily expressing the whole. I have reached out to some, but not all, to express interest in diplomacy. I do typically invite them to check out Brighthaven, but I have no real interest in breaking down their company or making them part of TEO. But divorcing even from that, let us discuss how we could move forward in helping the little guys stand out a little more without having to declare fealty to some big super power.
What are some things we could do to help prevent the little guys from being marginalized? Certainly attitudes such as respecting them as free agents is a beginning. Many of the big fish feel more secure trying to absorb the little fish and consolidating their power rather than to rely on a group that may be with them in this fight and against them in the next. Allowing them to not only participate in our larger actions, but calling out and honoring their accomplishments as part of the effort could help wonders. We should recognize them as potential tippers of scales rather than some small marginal group. One small group may not shift the tides of war too much. But five, ten? These groups play a part, but are usually not heralded for their role.
How about other thoughts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There needs to be some reason that the big powers can't just make colonies in the fringe areas of the map. If they can, that will be the biggest impediment to forming new settlements, in my opinion. All the land will be gobbled up and the big powers will just roll over the smaller people who try to take their land off in the boonies.
Slightly related, wouldn't it be awesome to coordinate with one superpower, attacking another superpower's colony and having them evacuate their troops so that the first superpower can move in to attack their main settlements? Perhaps such an alliance would be the best method for acquiring new lands if the lands are all controlled by a few.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There needs to be some reason that the big powers can't just make colonies in the fringe areas of the map. If they can, that will be the biggest impediment to forming new settlements, in my opinion. All the land will be gobbled up and the big powers will just roll over the smaller people who try to take their land off in the boonies.
This is definitely a good point. And one that tends to counter the logic behind allowing 'Alliances' to jump into war easily. If a group needs to spend some resources (like precious, precious DI) beyond simple men and time to declare war and go aid one of their colonies, then it would make a strategy of holding lots of colonies just a little less viable.
In the real world, the desires of a local populace are usually what starts creating disfavor and sometimes even animosity towards a host. Over generations, the population feels less and less like citizens of the original colonizer and more independent. It becomes less about 'We are here to extend the power of the crown' and more about 'Why are we sacrificing all of this that we could have for ourselves to a crown that we almost never see?' In game, we will not have the time or generational shifts for this sort of behavior to properly express itself in colonies. Further, communications are instantaneous and the most distant points will be hours away to quash potential rebellion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for the repost Lifedragn (I mean this seriously).
That said, this is exactly what I was leading towards when I brought the point up, in addition to the point itself.
Many people want to absorb the smaller guilds as proxies or divisions. I see that becoming a real thing happening in-game here (as in a major *player-based, not dev-based* mechanic) and to be fair, it is wrong to say "no you can't do that."
But at the same time, this instigates a "join us or die" sort of mentality, where the big ones and all their proxies control the main lands with the small groups pushed aside to the leftovers or are forced so far into the wilderness that it makes it hard for them to do much anyway.
This will have to be an entirely metagame policy building we need to focus on. All companies, no matter size, should be respected as equals. I honestly do not see how we can stop this "marginalization" from happening except to proactively not engage in those behaviours.
And to be honest, a major part of why I made the tortured, out-spoken, slightly insane character of "Brother Letholdus Zael" is to counter this problem. Hell, it is THE major reason. I want to have a in-game system of checking the large nations and groups so that everyone gets their freedom and their fair-share and say in the matters. (brb going to add this to my charter post because I am pretty sure I forgot to say it)
It is unreasonable for us to force a mechanic to curtail these large factions and to let the little factions have their way however, The large factions have as much right to attempt to absorb smaller factions as the smaller factions have to resist it (same as the concepts behind banditry and that form of pvp).
This will be a major point of unspoken contention in the metagame sense, or so it appears to me. That said, I would like to shameless promote myself here, and would like to direct anyone who wishes to help in my endeavors in an IC mode of conversation to contact me directly. At the same time I would like to ask, both IC and OOC, for more people to start focusing on my cause as well as for existing organizations to adopt a similar stance in their foreign policies, or at least one that aligns with mine. And I don't want words, or fancy constitutions. I want to see it happening when we get into the game.
Thanks again, Lifedragn.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What do you mean? Like go to any settlement and train a skill, even if that skill is actually available in only one of the settlements?
No, I mean that I kinda/sorta expect that if you're a Member of any one Settlement in a Nation, then you'll be able to go to any other Settlement in that Nation and receive Training there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There needs to be some reason that the big powers can't just make colonies in the fringe areas of the map. If they can, that will be the biggest impediment to forming new settlements, in my opinion. All the land will be gobbled up and the big powers will just roll over the smaller people who try to take their land off in the boonies.
Slightly related, wouldn't it be awesome to coordinate with one superpower, attacking another superpower's colony and having them evacuate their troops so that the first superpower can move in to attack their main settlements? Perhaps such an alliance would be the best method for acquiring new lands if the lands are all controlled by a few.
You just said literally 90% of my character's goals for this game.
I just want to clarify on this (and I know you agree). It is more than my guy (call him the UN) holding a sword out and saying I will kill everyone you send to try to attack, bribe, exhort, whatever. It is also the idea of getting others to align themselves to my way of thinking, of national embargoes, of politics, diplomacy. PvP is only a tool to enforce the politics and policies of the person (in this situation).In the real world, the desires of a local populace are usually what starts creating disfavor and sometimes even animosity towards a host. Over generations, the population feels less and less like citizens of the original colonizer and more independent. It becomes less about 'We are here to extend the power of the crown' and more about 'Why are we sacrificing all of this that we could have for ourselves to a crown that we almost never see?' In game, we will not have the time or generational shifts for this sort of behavior to properly express itself in colonies. Further, communications are instantaneous and the most distant points will be hours away to quash potential rebellion.
I disagree. The nations of the EE will face a "generational disillusionment" just as in real life. This is in terms of new players later, in like OE and after. They will join, and whereas we all will know each other fairly well, and who the "players" are, these new players will come in and only hear stories, and they will not know who we are as individuals, but rather as "icons" if you will. This has much the same effect. Newbs get on "oh TEO... right they were good in letting me get all this stuff, but why are we still with them? Lets form our own company and try to take over/move on"
@Nihimon
I see. That method is, I believe, still in the works, but I think it will be the case. I understand if it isn't however.
I dont think we can be sure about what will happen.
You cant predict exacly how people will act in a game.
if it was real life things will be more easy to predict because of a major factor "Fear" that cant work like in real life even if people try to use it in the game.
So a Rebellion can happen in few hours in a big nation as Lifedragn mention split the nation in half or in more parts.
Everyone can make plans about big nations or small companies and thats fine but you cant predict how things will turn out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whereas TEO history has largely focused on Good alignment with extensions into neutral, I would definitely like to view my organization more as a Defender of the Weak as opposed to a bully. Though a lot of big groups start out seeing themselves as benevolent, or at the least not harmful, and end up losing sight of their original aims as they get enveloped in the struggle for power.
Whereas TEO has an extended hand for those who wish to join or discuss alliances, and is actively looking for collaborators with Brighthaven, we really do not hold a 'Join us or die' viewpoint. The big risk of TEO running amok, I feel, is getting over-ambitious with how far and wide we try to spread our "protection". The risk that we go rushing off to defend and police lands belonging to someone who hasn't asked for our aid and gets upset that we just took it upon ourselves without respecting their claim to the territory. Being aware of the risk, I am ensuring that such behavior is being marked as negative by our general policies. But being internal it can sometimes be difficult to recognize potential violations due to inherent biases.
I appreciate your goals, not only as an improvement to the community as a whole, but as an external and hopefully neutral force that will be willing to speak up and tell us we are overstepping our bounds and running a little too wild.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tolath
I believe you were responding to the third part of my post, concerning Lifedragn's comment on the desires of local populaces and the degradation of societies.
If so, I shall respond by saying, yes you generally can predict.
A schism, or schism-like effects, will happen at some point in every major nation/company. Once you have enough people, and after it has been enough time, they will be restless, or new ideas will emerge, or whatever else.
This doesn't mean it will be a rebellion. Usually, in fact, it doesn't. But assuming it does, there is a simple factor that controls most success of such events that applies to both real life and in-game (both to varying degrees of impact)
1) Mass. Simply how many people are on each side in the rebellion. An army of 100 vs 1000 generally will go in favor of the 1000.
2) Level/Experience. if one side is all lvl 100 and the other is all lvl 1, it generally will go in favor of the lvl 100 team.
3) Gear. Whoever has the best gear wins usually. Knives versus guns versus cannons debate.
4) Leadership and skill. Usually the most important. Everything else is unimportant (excluding the extreme cases) if the leadership and the skills of one side far outweigh the other. A single squad can, and has, delayed, stopped, or even crushed entire armies using the right tactics and employing the right strategies. A good leader also generates high morale.
5) Morale. If one side believes they will win, and they other doesn't even want to fight, and feels they will lose, the "winning" side usual is correct. Morale is to men as ten is to one, or so they say.
6) External pressure. Other nations interfering. Can and will contribute to any or all of the above factors on various sides. the most varying in predictability.
By looking at all these factors and combining them we are able to create a clear picture of what the conflict will look like, and who will likely win. Of course there are always upsets, but if you are going to try to argue that, then the issue is moot anyway, because unpredictability is by definition note predictable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whereas TEO history has largely focused on Good alignment with extensions into neutral, I would definitely like to view my organization more as a Defender of the Weak as opposed to a bully. Though a lot of big groups start out seeing themselves as benevolent, or at the least not harmful, and end up losing sight of their original aims as they get enveloped in the struggle for power.
Whereas TEO has an extended hand for those who wish to join or discuss alliances, and is actively looking for collaborators with Brighthaven, we really do not hold a 'Join us or die' viewpoint. The big risk of TEO running amok, I feel, is getting over-ambitious with how far and wide we try to spread our "protection". The risk that we go rushing off to defend and police lands belonging to someone who hasn't asked for our aid and gets upset that we just took it upon ourselves without respecting their claim to the territory. Being aware of the risk, I am ensuring that such behavior is being marked as negative by our general policies. But being internal it can sometimes be difficult to recognize potential violations due to inherent biases.
I appreciate your goals, not only as an improvement to the community as a whole, but as an external and hopefully neutral force that will be willing to speak up and tell us we are overstepping our bounds and running a little too wild.
Usually the "big ones" don't view it as a "join or die" but that is usually the choice the "small ones" have. When a biggie marches into a sector, most times the smalls simply just cannot compete, especially in a market-economy based game.
Don't worry too much in regards to me. I will not lie, there will be biases in my decisions, and I will play favorites. That said, I will stay as true to my goals as is humanly possible, and I will always be neutral in my stance. And I will never, EVER be quiet in regards to this issue XD In addition, as I work not for money but for ideals and friends, I will make my biases clear. If I do not like you, you will know it. The same applies if I do, or if I am neutral. This is applied on all levels. For instance, I am friendly with you, Lifedragn, as an individual, but I am neutral to the TEO as a whole. Thus I'd do what you ask as a friend for free, but as the Leader of the TEO for some sort of compensation.
The problem being, once again, that I am only a single man midst the torrent of society.
4) Leadership and skill. Usually the most important. Everything else is unimportant (excluding the extreme cases) if the leadership and the skills of one side far outweigh the other. A single squad can, and has, delayed, stopped, or even crushed entire armies using the right tactics and employing the right strategies. A good leader also generates high morale.
Thats exacly the factor that makes things unpredictable at this point of time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will disagree again.
It depends on level of intel. Obviously if the leader and the policies that he/she spawns, as well as his/her reasoning are unknown then it cannot be predicted. But if the leader is known, and the policies and reasoning that leader supports are known, it is generally seen easy to predict. This is also why I threw in skill at the same segment.
I dont doubt you can predict a move of someone when you know how he thinks and acts but the outcome cant be predicted because we dont know the person who is against him.
And i doubt that every big kingdom will know every player in their ranks so well to predict a move and stop it when its about rebelion.
The same time we know alot of details about some big kingdoms but very few things about other parties so we assume that the big kingdom is the favorite and i agree with you in that but we cant be so sure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There needs to be some reason that the big powers can't just make colonies in the fringe areas of the map. If they can, that will be the biggest impediment to forming new settlements, in my opinion. All the land will be gobbled up and the big powers will just roll over the smaller people who try to take their land off in the boonies.
Slightly related, wouldn't it be awesome to coordinate with one superpower, attacking another superpower's colony and having them evacuate their troops so that the first superpower can move in to attack their main settlements? Perhaps such an alliance would be the best method for acquiring new lands if the lands are all controlled by a few.
I realize that PfO will be a different type of territory control game because of different incentives for that control. What you describe does happen in other similar games of territory, but it is not always the rule. It is usually the exception and it is usually a temporary thing. The big guys usually have a hard time holding far flung "colonies" because the pace of conflict is sped up and condensed much more in games than in real history.
The game needs to be designed in ways that give the smaller groups the best chance at grabbing new land when it gets added. I am not totally naïve, I know that large organized groups will find meta ways around handicapped expansion and grow that way. It is up to GW to make sure that their mechanics leave room for new groups to establish new land, or the game will be a big FAIL in that way. One of PfO's major pillars and draws would be a joke.
A group (kingdom) of settlements should be VERY much more costly to run than a single settlement. The more settlements, the more costly for each. The training needed for Every skill path or "role" should be so varied that no, single kingdom can cover them all. At the same time, a large, well run Kingdom should be able to offer a pretty good variety of high end training for many roles.
Just opinion and speculation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
that is not the solution I would ask for. I don't think it is necessarily right to say that small guilds HAVE to go to the new, ild lands if they want to be viable.
Not at all. They are designing the system so that smaller companies can be viable and very useful, in areas full of kingdoms, in many ways. If those smaller companies want to claim and hold land (independent and sovereign) though, they may need to seek it somewhere outside of the "core" of the older, established lands. There will also be possibilities when some part of the "core" collapses, but that is pretty risky.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to repeat this in several threads and it is ignored. There will be no super city. Each city will have limited territory/lots. Higher level building take up multiple lots. While a settlement may have every facility at level 1. It may only have a couple at level 3. Support of other high level buildings will need to come from other settlements. even the lowest settlement of the nation or even allies may need to be supported for the good of the whole.
It seems that level 2 is really going to be the sweet spot, but I suspect, when we see the numbers, there will be no more that 1/2 of the needed level 2 buildings in a settlement. Having 2 settlements each having its complement of level 2 facilities, but each in 2 of 3 or 4 settlements would make a nation more robust.