Goblin Squad Member
|
As the leader of what is currently the largest organization for PFO this is an issue very near and dear to my heart.
In EVE there was a class of skills called "Corporation Management Skills." You had to have them trained to certain levels to have over a certain amount of members, to have over a certain % of players that didn't share your race, or to manage player owned structures.
I HATED them with the exception of the structure management skills. I took a little time to think on why I hate them so much and I think I've got it nailed down.
Every skill in EVE was tied to actions. Whether that be fighting, mining, production, trading, fleet boosting etc. There was an action you sat down in-game and did on the character with those skills.
Corporation Management... No. You could give the rights to do what you did to anyone in your corporation. Sure a lot of work goes into managing a corporation but it's all meta-game stuff. With the exception of anchoring (Structure Management) training every corporation management skill you have from 0-5 gave you literally NOTHING you could do on that character that couldn't be done just as well from another other than hold the CEO title.
To that end I ask Goblinworks to do at least one of three things:
1. Make company management skills tied to certain in-game actions. For instance the ability to get NPCs to advertise your company, or management tasks you can't just give permissions to another untrained character to do. Or making company management and formation leadership skills linked.
2. (My favorite) Tie company management skills to the company instead of the leader. Make the organization have it's own list of skills it can train to give various benefits to the company. I would base what skills it is capable of training on how many members who are actively skill training belong to that group. So say 6+ for company skills 20+ for settlement 100+ for kingdom.
3. Don't have company management skills. I would prefer 1 or 2 or a mix of 1 & 2 but this would be better than the way EVE did it. At least I won't have to sit there and do nothing for a few months while I get the skills needed to run TEO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Make company management skills tied to certain in-game actions. For instance the ability to get NPCs to advertise your company, or management tasks you can't just give permissions to another untrained character to do. Or making company management and formation leadership skills linked.
2. (My favorite) Tie company management skills to the company instead of the leader. Make the organization have it's own list of skills it can train to give various benefits to the company. I would base what skills it is capable of training on how many members who are actively skill training belong to that group. So say 6+ for company skills 20+ for settlement 100+ for kingdom.
3. Don't have company management skills. I would prefer 1 or 2 or a mix of 1 & 2 but this would be better than the way EVE did it. At least I won't have to sit there and do nothing for a few months while I get the skills needed to run TEO.
I highly prefer a combination of one and two. The idea of companies growing in skill over time appeals to me (and manages turnover a bit better), but excellent leaders who take the time to perfect leadership in and out of game would be well served to be able to provide bonuses to their followers/citizens.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope GW forgoes any management skills that map onto real world, metagame leadership. A skill like "melee combat skill" is there because we can't do what it points to without a game abstraction (combat). But the leader/s of a political entity is something you can do in and metagame.
I don't want the limit to the number of people in our settlement to be a management skill. I want it to be the real world political skill of the membership as they try and balance out the increasingly complex and disparate needs of a larger polity. In-game structural choices can support this, for example the choice of political structure in a charter.
The only issue I foresee is that typically the ability of an organisation to manage itself is tied directly to the skills and abilities of those who are in upper management roles.
For that reason, I'd not vote for option 2. However, option 1 resonates very clearly with the way that I'd expect things to happen. Just to ensure we're on the same wavelength, from what I read you would suggest something like this:
Skill: Company Management
Pre-requisite: None
Description: Enables the ability to receive company roles.
Skill: Warehouse Operation
Pre-requisites: Trading 5, Company Management 1
Description: Permits the operation of warehouses. 5% bonus to warehouse capacity per level.
Skill: Warehouse Management
Pre-requisites: Trading 5, Company Management 5
Description: Permits the active management of warehouses. May manage one additional Warehouse Operator per level.
Something similar to that? I've used a similar tiering system to Eve Online. I've made the assumption that there would be a core "company management" skill simply to provide some kind of gate to assist in the prevention of scamming.
I hope GW forgoes any management skills that map onto real world, metagame leadership. A skill like "melee combat skill" is there because we can't do what it points to without a game abstraction (combat). But the leader/s of a political entity is something you can do in and metagame.
I don't want the limit to the number of people in our settlement to be a management skill. I want it to be the real world political skill of the membership as they try and balance out the increasingly complex and disparate needs of a larger polity. In-game structural choices can support this, for example the choice of political structure in a charter.
I think it is probably a given that there will be some kind of gated mechanics to the operation of a settlement as that is what Goblinworks perceive most of our time being used to build towards.
It also dissuades opportunistic "corporate thieves". If you have a gated system where they must devote time to training those skills, it then means we'll see less of them, as for many of the "leet kids" who think it's cool to steal from people simply won't want to invest the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only issue I foresee is that typically the ability of an organisation to manage itself is tied directly to the skills and abilities of those who are in upper management roles.
For that reason, I'd not vote for option 2. However, option 1 resonates very clearly with the way that I'd expect things to happen. Just to ensure we're on the same wavelength, from what I read you would suggest something like this:
Skill: Company Management
Pre-requisite: None
Description: Enables the ability to receive company roles.Skill: Warehouse Operation
Pre-requisites: Trading 5, Company Management 1
Description: Permits the operation of warehouses. 5% bonus to warehouse capacity per level.Skill: Warehouse Management
Pre-requisites: Trading 5, Company Management 5
Description: Permits the active management of warehouses. May manage one additional Warehouse Operator per level.Something similar to that? I've used a similar tiering system to Eve Online. I've made the assumption that there would be a core "company management" skill simply to provide some kind of gate to assist in the prevention of scamming.
Maybe I'm misreading, but that sounds like the sitaution Andius was trying to avoid. They're skills that don't actually *do* anything, they just *permit* things.
I read that Andius' first option would mean that, for example, only a trading character could manage buildings with trading actions, unlike the Eve example where a character can be trained in only Corporate Management skills even if it has an obvious connection to a particular skill set.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope GW forgoes any management skills that map onto real world, metagame leadership. A skill like "melee combat skill" is there because we can't do what it points to without a game abstraction (combat). But the leader/s of a political entity is something you can do in and metagame.
I don't want the limit to the number of people in our settlement to be a management skill. I want it to be the real world political skill of the membership as they try and balance out the increasingly complex and disparate needs of a larger polity. In-game structural choices can support this, for example the choice of political structure in a charter.
I pretty much agree with this point. If you can recruit 1000 members some game mechanic shouldn't block you from letting them in until you train the next level.
If it does happen though, it at least shouldn't be some skill that serves no purpose other than letting those people in that you have to sit there and train on your character. Make it useful in way that actually involves playing the game, or make it trained by the corporation rather than hosing someone out of that skill training.
Ideally though I would like to see some really cool and creative ideas for company management skills. Like having a skill that allows you to assign champion status to someone in your organization that gives them a few really cool bonuses. Or officer status that gives them bonuses when dealing with NPCs from the NPC alliance you are affiliated with. And the skills make the bonuses stronger, or allow more officers etc.
Make it so just like player skills, there is not enough time to train every bonus to 100%. It give's each guild kind of a unique flavor. This guild can grant a lot of cool bonuses to it's leadership, this guild can build and maintain things for cheaper, and this guild has an easy time getting it's name plastered all over the starter towns.
I agree that skills shouldn't determine company size but I do think they should be there for the management of settlement structures, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't want the limit to the number of people in our settlement to be a management skill. I want it to be the real world political skill of the membership...
I partially disagree.
First, "Guilds" will mostly exist outside of PFO. There just isn't an in-game social organization that can map to all of the different cases we can think of for "Guilds". So, your real world political/leadership skill will come into play in how many people you can get to be a part of your out-of-game community.
In-game, I think it's generally reasonable to have Skills (both for Characters and for the Settlements themselves) that determine how well the Settlement can run. Then again, I'd really hate to have to devote a Character's training to running a Settlement. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if those Skills were applicable to other parts of the game, for example Unit Combat...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then again, I'd really hate to have to devote a Character's training to running a Settlement. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if those Skills were applicable to other parts of the game, for example Unit Combat...
I think that could by interesting. More general Leadership and Logistics skills that improve both your settlement and the effectiveness of your military force.
At the same time it would mean that only players interested in running settlements successfully would train them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then again, I'd really hate to have to devote a Character's training to running a Settlement. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if those Skills were applicable to other parts of the game, for example Unit Combat...I think that could by interesting. More general Leadership and Logistics skills that improve both your settlement and the effectiveness of your military force.
This is an acceptable solution to me but not ideal. Much better than the EVE system but I don't REALLY like it.
The reason is, as a leader... I'm not sure yet how good I will be at leading units. I'm pretty good with combat in Total War games so I could be a freaking stellar commander, but even if I am... how many leaders will be?
Leading a company/settlement/kingdom is about being able to put forth an idea and rally people behind it. It's about being able to find the talent among the members you bring in, and put the right people in the right positions.
I'm far more of a diplomacy/ideas kind of guy than a straight up battlefield commander, and that doesn't make me any less of a leader than someone who can lead from the front lines.
So while I like tying unit leadership and company leadership skills together on some level, I would rather company leadership skills revolve around things all company leaders have in common, or else be skills that it's very non-essential for the main leader to take.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Leading a company/settlement/kingdom is about being able to put forth an idea and rally people behind it. It's about being able to find the talent among the members you bring in, and put the right people in the right positions.
This I have to strongly disagree with. Having followers does not make you a leader. It makes you the head of a mob. Being a leader means you have the ability to organize and shape the group into a cohesive force capable of working together for a goal. Yes, a component of that is recognizing the skills of your supporters and putting them into the proper positions, which may make *them* leaders of smaller groups, but the overarching leader needs to be able to bring these different arms together. If you have no ability to do this, and just rely on the abilities of your subordinates, you're not a leader, you're a figurehead.
Perhaps we are coming at this the wrong way; rather than restrict people from carrying out company/settlement duties, why not instead provide synergies?
As an example, let us assume that first there is a core 'leadership' skill that applies to company/settlement management. Bob the Guard Captain is played by someone who is a warehouse manager in real life. They understand logistics but don't want their time off to be consumed by it. However, their settlement needs someone to manage their warehouses.
So Bob offers to do it. He's already Guard Captain which requires a certain level of Management. Fortunately, Warehouse Manager requires the same level so no additional training is required and off he goes, performing both duties.
Three months down the line, Jim the Warehouse Manager joins from a rival settlement as he's fed up with how they treat him. Bob relinquishes his role as Warehouse Manager and Jim steps in. Immediately, the warehouses gain 25% storage space because of Jim's trading skills.
Rather than Bob not be able to help out in a role that he can do with his eyes shut, he can help his settlement until a more suitable player who wants to play that kind of character comes along who suddenly provides a host of benefits due to his character's skill set.
For Bob's part, perhaps his character has a host of Unit Formation skills that grants bonuses to being Guard Captain; being able to marshal a larger militia, grant skill bonuses to NPC guards, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Leading a company/settlement/kingdom is about being able to put forth an idea and rally people behind it. It's about being able to find the talent among the members you bring in, and put the right people in the right positions.This I have to strongly disagree with. Having followers does not make you a leader. It makes you the head of a mob. Being a leader means you have the ability to organize and shape the group into a cohesive force capable of working together for a goal. Yes, a component of that is recognizing the skills of your supporters and putting them into the proper positions, which may make *them* leaders of smaller groups, but the overarching leader needs to be able to bring these different arms together. If you have no ability to do this, and just rely on the abilities of your subordinates, you're not a leader, you're a figurehead.
No one person can be good at all things. Finding the right people for the right positions, and giving them the power they need to make use of their talents is THEE MOST essential skill for a good leader.
That doesn't make you a figurehead. It's a lot of work to provide a drive and a vision, advertise it, and then find the proper people you need to make that vision succeed. And it's a constant effort too. You need to constantly be making sure everyone is doing their job and those who aren't are getting replaced.
Just ask Ryan Dancey. I doubt he's doing much of the actual coding, art, etc. He provided a vision, and now he's advertising it and putting together the team he needs to make it happen. I'm sure he helps out where he best can. Just like I like to handle diplomacy. But he doesn't have to be heading every effort of every team. That's freaking impossible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need every skill to be a leader. You need the ability to lead. The ability to inspire and rally is not the ability to lead. You need the ability to coordinate people, to rationally weigh decisions and produce a cohesive plan of action. Just because someone can stand up in front of a room full of people and giving a rousing speech to "Do Something" does not mean he can accomplish any productive goal.
Yes, you need someone with vision to come up with the goal. But a leader is the person who can recognize and effect the route to that goal.
Edit: What I'm trying to say is that there *are* certain skills a leader needs to be effective. It's not just a matter of coming up with an idea and getting people who agree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my experience, the best leaders do four things:
Find the most competent people for what is necessary, and bring them in.
Motivate them
Stay the hell out of their way (but rein them in when necessary)
Protect them when they need it.
Yes, there are other duties and responsibilities, but most of it is keeping your followers productive and in line with your vision - while making them feel autonomous, valued, and happy.
Lincoln, for all of his vaults, was one of the single best leaders in that sense. FDR/Churchill/etc also exhibit those hallmarks, as did Carnegie.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Edit: What I'm trying to say is that there *are* certain skills a leader needs to be effective. It's not just a matter of coming up with an idea and getting people who agree.
I think we are arguing roughly the same point here.
Tying this back to the game mechanic I DID imply that there are certain skills all leaders should share.
I just don't think leading formations on the field of battle are a part of those skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just don't think leading formations on the field of battle are a part of those skills.
Not necessarily.
Perhaps instead of set skills a leader must have, there could be a pool of choices and effective leadership would require training 4 out of 10, or something like that, from that pool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Coordinating and running a full scale army though, that has a lot in common.
Sure but that's not what the unit skills are for. Those are for actually leading the units in battle.
Unless what you are saying is that the actual job of commanding a whole army of troops makes you a great leader. And it does in a certain sense of the word.
In the Company Management sense of leadership, things happen much more slowly. You are coordinating things over days, weeks, months, or even years. Not the split second decisions that can win or lose a battle.
It's an entirely different set of talents that are only loosely related.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I need an abstraction layer through the game to represent things like my character being a virtuoso with a rapier--there needs to be mechanics like "Weapons Specialization: Rapier." Similarly, because there's an abstraction layer that handles combat, I need skills like "Martial Leadership" to simulate me being able to afford some kind of combat multiplier to a unit's coherent actions.
What I don't need is a mechanic for organizing people into a unit, getting them to buy into a certain force and command structure, selling them on a tactical or operational plan, etc. These are human social interactions, which we can do on our own. Remember: the goal here is a game that maximizes meaningful social interaction.
Applying this to settlement management, none of the human social aspects (like how many people you have) should be replaced within the abstraction layer. Now, certain physical aspects might need to be mechanically present. For example, the amount of buildings we can build can be gated by the amount of economic activity we can organize towards it--that's how cost works. But the construction on those buildings, or the upkeep on them could very well be tied to an architecture skill tree. Maybe every rank in Architecture: Building Maintenance lowers building upkeep costs by 10%.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to kind of poke this back out there again. This is an idea I had a few months ago.
As some Empyrean Order members may already know we are going to have a multi-event competition every two months in game to determine our champion.
And of course like any other organization we will have officers.
I was thinking... players will show these positions the proper respect that they've earned. NPCs... if it's anything like other games then they won't know the leader of the largest kingdom from the freshest recruit in the smallest chartered company.
But if there was any real advantage to having a high rank within an organization, then officer would become the lowest rank in most of them.
But what if companies had a certain amount of positions they could give away based on player activity? Then you could give a champion position, or officer position and have them be meaningful in-game. Both in-terms of NPC reaction, and real mechanical benefits.
I think that would be a VERY cool skill if guilds are able to train skills. Getting new offices with bonuses that they can give away, and enhancing those bonuses. Say a champion of a kingdom with 100+ members does +5-10% damage depending on how high your champion skill is trained. Your officers give a bonus to units they are in charge of. Your adviser gets 3% better knowledge checks.
Basically there are offices you can unlock and enhance based on your companies size and skills.
To be clear this would be separate from your actual ranking structure. You might have 10 officers in your ranking structure, but only give the bonus to 3.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I don't need is a mechanic for organizing people into a unit...
I agree. But I think it's entirely appropriate (even though I don't particularly desire it) to have an abstraction layer for how well you can manage a Settlement, with respect to keeping the streets free of sewage, ensuring there's enough bread & beer, etc.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think that creating skill training gates for player organization accomplishments will have the perverse incentive of encouraging the CEO-equivalent character to be a paid training alt who does nothing but train the organization skills, because there would be a direct mechanical advantage to organizations which accepted it as a cost of doing business.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that creating skill training gates for player organization accomplishments will have the perverse incentive of encouraging the CEO-equivalent character to be a paid training alt who does nothing but train the organization skills, because there would be a direct mechanical advantage to organizations which accepted it as a cost of doing business.
Personally I think they should use the option 1 (Player trained) skills for enhancing activities related to leadership rather than giving direct bonuses to the company. Such as I listed earlier, getting NPC's to advertise for you. So a really good leadership skill IMO would be:
(Not sure on skill name)- You gain one town crier per level. Town crier's can be placed in starter towns, settlements owned by your organization, or allied player settlements who have granted you permissions. They can repeat a 5-200 character message every 1 minute that will be heard by everyone within X meters of them. Town criers cannot be placed within X meters of another town crier.
Example messages:
"The Empyrean Order is currently recruiting. We are a kingdom with an peacekeeping focus, accepting all kinds of talents. If you are interested come to our recruitment offices at (Coordinates)"
"The Empyrean Order is having a storytelling competition! All are welcome to attend or participate! Come to The Seraph's Kiss at (Time). See Atlantia Nightfall for details."
Option 2 (Guild trained) skills would be like this:
Leadership: Grain X new officer positions per level. Formations lead by officers gain a X% morale bonus.
--Officer Training (Requires leadership 1): The morale bonus for formations lead by officers is increased by X% per level.
--Advisers (Requires leadership 2): Gain 1 adviser at 1st leve and every 3 levels afterward. Advisers gain X% bonus on their knowledge checks. That bonus is increased by X% each level.
--Champion(Requires leadership 3): Unlocks a champion position at first level. Your champion gain X threads per level of this skill.
Defense: Your members gain X threads while in hexes you control, and 1/2 X threads while in hexes your allies control.
--Solid allies Requires defense 5: Your members gain X% more threads from your defense skill per level until it equals the threads you have in your own hex.
Offence: Your members deal X% more damage to player settlement NPC guards per level.
--Siege Warfare(Requires offence 3): Your members and siege equipment deal +X% damage vs. buildings per level.
Management: Building upkeep costs within your hexs are reduced by X% per level.
--Morale(Requires leadership 3): Commoner upkeep within your hexes is reduced by X% per level.
etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that creating skill training gates for player organization accomplishments will have the perverse incentive of encouraging the CEO-equivalent character to be a paid training alt who does nothing but train the organization skills, because there would be a direct mechanical advantage to organizations which accepted it as a cost of doing business.
This is generally the same concern I have, which is why I think it's very important that the Settlement/Nation management skills have synergistic effects on other facets of play. Not enough to make everyone take them, but enough to make them worthwhile to take on a real character. Yes, I realize that's a tall order.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In most MMO's I've played in which guilds provided benefits, these perks were awarded to guild members based on membership size, rank, or through the achievement of guild goals. Who actually ran the guild was simply a matter of who created the guild charter, so being a skillful leader was totally determined by the real-life skills of the player, not game mechanics.
In that leadership may have a game mechanic component in Pathfinder Online, I would suggest identifying what skill subgroups would exist under the company management umbrella, along with each one's associated perks/bonuses. As Blaeringr suggested, given the variety of leadership styles, it would seem more realistic for there to be a pool of leadership skills from which a potential leader could pull, rather than a one size fits all approach. The more training time the leader wished to devote to breadth and depth of each subgroup, the more varied his/her range of management skills would become. After all, one company leader may have no plans of ever running a settlement, wishing rather to be the leader of a nomadic band of sell-swords, so why would he have any need to learn settlement managing skills? On the flip side, the mayor of a prosperous trading post company may hire his necessary muscle and never lift a sword, so what need would he have for combat leadership skills? However, I could certainly see making prerequisite skills for certain types of leaders (e.g. if you want to run a settlement, you need the settlement leadership subskills).
In this way, I could see a whole list of company management skills, each providing unique perks through the leader, and as customizably mixed-and-matched as any other skills in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing that several posters have mentioned in this thread is that good leaders know how to both put the right people in the right positions, and how get the most out of the people they put there. One component of a leadership skill system that I would like to see is that of delegation/mentoring.
In most guild structures, there are officers. However, much like the leadership position in traditional guild mechanics, accept for specialized permissions (e.g. access to guild banks, recruiting new members, etc.), most of what makes a good officer is dependent on the player, not any game mechanism. But what if it were? What if a leader had the ability to designate members as officers not just in name, but what if by designating them as subleaders, they allowed the officers to better the group they were helping to manage?
Certainly, one thing that makes any particular group better at whatever it does is the skill level of its members. However, in every game I've played, my having a certain skill score has no effect on my companions ability to ply their similar skill. But if that skill score represents not only my ability to perform that skill, but also represents my knowledge and experience, then having my expertise within the company should also benefit like-skilled members. Simply put, a group of soldiers, carpenters, artists, etc. all perform better when a member of their group is more advanced at that particular skill. These mentoring members tutor the group, give helpful pointers, impart wisdom, and generally raise the performance of their colleagues to a higher level than would have happened if they were not present.
So here's the idea:
1. A leader trains in a skill called (for lack of more creativity) "Delegation". Perhaps there are 5 levels of this skill, each representing the number of mentoring officers that the leader can delegate to.
2. Delegated officers can designate which of their skills they wish to mentor for the benefit of their company. Likely, the benefits to members could be affected by the difference between the officer's score in the mentored skill and each members' score in that same skill.
3. Benefits could include possible skill gain speed increase, greater resource acquisition, greater spell effects, etc.
In this way, you could have companies that are world renown not for their size, but their quality. With this system, you might even have wandering instructors looking to be hired by companies not just for their ability as skilled individuals, but for their beneficial influence as officers for the entire company. After all, as deadly as a single sword-master may be, he is still only one man. However, if put in charge of a school, he may, in time, produce a skilled army.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In most MMO's I've played in which guilds provided benefits, these perks were awarded to guild members based on membership size, rank, or through the achievement of guild goals.
I'm not sure if you intended it, but that sparked an idea that I think would solve all of these problems.
Have the Settlement or Player Nation itself train different Management Skills. The Leadership selects the Skills that get trained first, but it takes up time on the Settlement itself rather than taking the leader's Character's time. This will also keep a Settlement from falling apart if the leader leaves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
That would seem like a good balance. Certainly, some communities would be better skilled at certain aspects of settlement life than others and should retain that proficiency, until new management began directing them along a different path.
So to illustrate, if a leader had a high skill in "Leadership: Settlement Defense", they could help get a settlement started in raising it's defensive capabilities (stronger walls, more durable buildings, etc.). Over that settlement's training period, coupled with the expenditure of resources and money, that settlement could become a more defensible settlement. If it's leader didn't have that particular leadership skill, but had "Leadership: Trade Enhancement", he might direct his settlement towards improving storage, perhaps. In both cases, such improvements could only be initiated by a leader with the appropriate leadership subskill.
Does that make sense with your suggestion?
By the way, I changed my account name...this is still Hopeful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this is the post you're thinking of, Decius.
From NPC law enforcement in PC settlement?:
To give you some background, each hex and settlement at it's heart has a set of Development Indexes. These are effectively ability scores for the hex; instead of Intelligence you have Civilization, instead of Charisma you have Morale, etc. These vary from 1-1000. These are advanced by dealing with threats in the hex, building structures in your settlement, acquiring artifacts, etc. The higher your development indexes, the better your settlement, the more and higher level structures you can build, the better your settlement runs, etc.
He goes on to talk about the PvP window, but I think that's the section you were remembering about Settlement stats.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In most MMO's I've played in which guilds provided benefits, these perks were awarded to guild members based on membership size, rank, or through the achievement of guild goals.I'm not sure if you intended it, but that sparked an idea that I think would solve all of these problems.
Have the Settlement or Player Nation itself train different Management Skills. The Leadership selects the Skills that get trained first, but it takes up time on the Settlement itself rather than taking the leader's Character's time. This will also keep a Settlement from falling apart if the leader leaves.
...
......
...
*sigh*
You and Blaeringr should really start reading my posts...
2. (My favorite) Tie company management skills to the company instead of the leader. Make the organization have it's own list of skills it can train to give various benefits to the company. I would base what skills it is capable of training on how many members who are actively skill training belong to that group. So say 6+ for company skills 20+ for settlement 100+ for kingdom.
Option 2 skills would be like this:
Leadership: Grain X new officer positions per level. Formations lead by officers gain a X% morale bonus.
--Officer Training (Requires leadership 1): The morale bonus for formations lead by officers is increased by X% per level.
--Advisers (Requires leadership 2): Gain 1 adviser at 1st leve and every 3 levels afterward. Advisers gain X% bonus on their knowledge checks. That bonus is increased by X% each level.
--Champion(Requires leadership 3): Unlocks a champion position at first level. Your champion gain X threads per level of this skill.Defense: Your members gain X threads while in hexes you control, and 1/2 X threads while in hexes your allies control.
--Solid allies Requires defense 5: Your members gain X% more threads from your defense skill per level until it equals the threads you have in your own hex.Offence: Your members deal X% more damage to player settlement NPC guards per level.
--Siege Warfare(Requires offence 3): Your members and siege equipment deal +X% damage vs. buildings per level.Management: Building upkeep costs within your hexs are reduced by X% per level.
--Morale(Requires leadership 3): Commoner upkeep within your hexes is reduced by X% per level.etc.