Peaceful transfer of hexes?

So if our neighboors are struggling and don't want to see their settlement turned to ruins is there an option to just transfer the settlement to us?

Also, to expand your settlement do you have to move into an adjacent hex or any hex?

When you conquer a settlement can you rename it? (If anything is left)

So if our neighboors are struggling and don't want to see their settlement turned to ruins is there an option to just transfer the settlement to us?

The best I've been able to figure, if a populous settlement wanted to it could move enough people into the failing settlement and possibly take it over.

Also, to expand your settlement do you have to move into an adjacent hex or any hex?

No, I have the impression that you would upgrade your settlement itself.

When you conquer a settlement can you rename it? (If anything is left)

Not according to my info: To conquer and take a settlement by force of arms you have to destroy the settlement altogether, including whatever was in it at the time (such as the money in its bank and items in its auction house.

Don´t like very much this need to destroy everything to conquer a settlement it look like a "Gengis Khan playstyle", people should be allowed to keep some buildings and repair it.

Perhaps the settlement husk will at least be lootable?

Perhaps the settlement husk will at least be lootable?

Na, that gets you the Pillager flag, that one is tough to get rid of :p

We need to ask and see if they still are thinking that total destruction is the only way to take over a hex. Last word I heard it was, but I wish there were other methods. The guys who built the settlement can at least get some money selling off the buildings. Oh wow, I wonder if that means all the roads they put down would have to be destroyed as well? Oh that would bite!

I think this will be possible. You'll have to arrange for the Charter to be amended so that it vests authority in whatever group you want to handle the takeover, and those people would need to exit their current Settlement as well. Then the two Settlements could form a Kingdom and operate as one political unit.

I think this will be possible. You'll have to arrange for the Charter to be amended so that it vests authority in whatever group you want to handle the takeover, and those people would need to exit their current Settlement as well. Then the two Settlements could form a Kingdom and operate as one political unit.

Nice! Thanks Ryan! I figured there would be a way to do it eventually. It's good to know it'll be possible. :)

Don´t like very much this need to destroy everything to conquer a settlement it look like a "Gengis Khan playstyle", people should be allowed to keep some buildings and repair it.

Yeah, what you said. I could see that some skill centers might need to be raised to keep CE from getting access to best tier training, and/or that special upgrades might not be able to be restored though. Could even lead to some great RPing things or quests. YMMV

That's good. There needs to be peaceful ways to transfer settlements. That was an option severely lacking in Darkfall. You had to take down the walls and drop a siege to transfer ownership of a city, but all the time people would decide they wanted to move to another area and trade settlements peacefully.

Was a very immersion breaking and entirely unnecessary pain in the butt. It also could lead to betrayals in a way deeds in a trade window couldn't.

I love the option for peaceful transfer of power. I mean, now a spy can literly hand over the kingdom if they play things correctly.

I think this will be possible. You'll have to arrange for the Charter to be amended so that it vests authority in whatever group you want to handle the takeover, and those people would need to exit their current Settlement as well. Then the two Settlements could form a Kingdom and operate as one political unit.

Is there any chance we will be able to hold multiple positions in multiple charters(of the same type)?

The new social organizations aren't really compatible with the guild mentality that is ingrained into the gaming community. A 'guild' doesn't really fit anywhere, and doesn't have representation in the game, as of yet. I would like to be able to be part of a Settlement charter, have my own company that produces weapons sponsored by the settlement I'm a part of, be part of an adventuring company that is sponsored by another settlement, be part of a company that represents a PvP battalion for my settlement, and have a company charter that is the gaming group I have played with closely for years.

I love the option for peaceful transfer of power. I mean, now a spy can literly hand over the kingdom if they play things correctly.

Indeed, which is why one should never put much work into a pure 1 man owned kingdom. Unless you have one heck of a good reason to trust the leader,

Hmmm... what happens if a group of people with settlements in the hexes around the NPC settlements get together and form a kingdom?

For instance, what if Fort Inevitable were completely surrounded by a Chaotic Good kingdom, Thornkeep by a Lawful Good kingdom, and Fort Riverwatch by a Chaotic Evil kingdom? Wouldn't that effectively cut players off from (or trap them within) the NPC settlements matching their alignments?

Hmmm... what happens if a group of people with settlements in the hexes around the NPC settlements get together and form a kingdom?

For instance, what if Fort Inevitable were completely surrounded by a Chaotic Good kingdom, Thornkeep by a Lawful Good kingdom, and Fort Riverwatch by a Chaotic Evil kingdom? Wouldn't that effectively cut players off from (or trap them within) the NPC settlements matching their alignments?

I would imagine there is going to be a pretty large buffer zone, the area for such a buffer can easily be large enough to be unpatrollable.

Is there any chance we will be able to hold multiple positions in multiple charters(of the same type)?

What I have observed is that this behavior is extremely discouraged and usually forbidden in effective social structures in EVE, and I expect it to be the same in our game.

Just like you don't get to be a player on one sports team, a coach for another, and an owner of a third, people want you to have an undivided allegiance. The social network demands a laser-focus.

The result is that people who want to do what you're describing create alts, and usually create separate accounts, and create different virtual identities (even to the extent of having 'fake' Facebook pages) to obfuscate the fact that they're pretending to be several different humans.

Because the bias is so strong against this behavior, and because enabling it can be a huge fur-ball of inter-dependencies (and thus prone to bugs and exploits) I suspect we will not pursue it.

@Ryan

The difference here is that the 'guild' structure is not available in PFO. If I have friends that don't want to play the same, or near the same, alignment as me, we are going to be limited in our interactions.

From my short experience in EvE, people would have an alt in the main company they rolled with, and would jump around when a need their current company couldn't fulfill arose. I would like that to not be a necessary practice.

Some companies will want exclusivity, some won't care, some will encourage multiple affiliations. I would like to see the players have the choice in this matter. Give us two options for charters:
1. Exclusivity check box, forces a player to have zero affiliations of that charter type before they can join.
2. Administrative ability to bypass this check box.

Eve does do this, but eve also allows for hundreds of members in a corporation. Here we're being limited to a small group with the single-CC of 20 or so.

Eve does do this, but eve also allows for hundreds of members in a corporation. Here we're being limited to a small group with the single-CC of 20 or so.

Eh? In game adventuring parties can reach 20. I expect guilds will have larger populations.

Eve does do this, but eve also allows for hundreds of members in a corporation. Here we're being limited to a small group with the single-CC of 20 or so.

Or settlement, or kingdom. Both of which allow many more players, so I doubt it will be much of a problem.

If we do determine the system needs a change I say remove the CC player cap.

I assumed larger groups would just form into multiple CCs, probably connected to a single settlement.

Or if they get enough players, a kingdom, divided into settlements, divided into CCs.

That'd also allow the group wider alignments, if nothing else.

I assumed larger groups would just form into multiple CCs, probably connected to a single settlement.

Or if they get enough players, a kingdom, divided into settlements, divided into CCs.

That'd also allow the group wider alignments, if nothing else.

Indeed that is a strategy. Especially because alignment retrictions can be very limiting sometimes. For example, people could want to have LN in their groups but in a NG or a CG guild it would not be possible. So they create a LG company to have them and form an alliance with their original guild.

If I have friends that don't want to play the same, or near the same, alignment as me, we are going to be limited in our interactions.

We'll have to see how the natural social graph evolves in game. My expectation is that meaningful choice about alignment (and thus who you can Settle with) will be considered a feature, not a bug.

As I said, it's very hard to let characters be in many different social graphs. So even if the community decides that's a feature they want, it will have to be carefully prioritized, and it won't be something available early on in development.

RyanD

Eve does do this, but eve also allows for hundreds of members in a corporation. Here we're being limited to a small group with the single-CC of 20 or so.

You need to think of a Chartered Company like a Fleet in EVE, not a Corporation. It's just a Fleet that has some element of persistence.

Settlements are the EVE-Analog of Corporations and they'll have hundreds of members (maybe thousands). Kingdoms are the EVE-Analog of Alliances and they'll have thousands of members.

Wait.... A CC has a cap of 20 members??

So how can we have multiple chartered companies under one banner?

I'm guessing they must create a settlement?

I really don't understand why the CC is more like an EVE fleet and not an EVE corp. Then a settlement is like a small alliance. A Kingdom could be a very large alliance.

A settlement just sponsors chartered companies. You can be part of a settlement and not be in a company.

For this reason The Seventh Veil is structuring as an enveloping organization, outside of the game's social group mechanics.

Large group organization is going to be tricky if you aren't a kingdom. and any organization that wants to have LE LG CE and CG members, like TSV, you are probably going to have to structure outside of the game, and have VOIP or an IRC set up for global group chatting.

It seems like maintaining a large organization is going to require more dedication than going to a 'guild registrar' NPC with a small pile of coin.

But for bandit organizations and other ones who do not intend to build settlements to be restrict to 20 members is a great drawback. I hope GW rethink it and allow at least 40 members per CC.

Actually in EVE players can have a lot more ships in a fleet than 20, if I remmeber that well, so how can be this analogy precise?

But for bandit organizations and other ones who do not intend to build settlements to be restrict to 20 members is a great drawback. I hope GW rethink it and allow at least 40 members per CC.

Actually in EVE players can have a lot more ships in a fleet than 20, if I remmeber that well, so how can be this analogy precise?

I'd actually prefer to have a CC cap of 60, which is the upper end of what I would consider a medium sized guild. This would also allow for 3 x raid groups of 20.

My concern is, it is all about the naming of the umbrella. I want my company name to be attached to all of my members. I don't want to have in the naming: UNC - A, UNC - B and UNC - C

The company maybe and was planned to be broken down into three or more squads or parties.

Another solution would be somehow allow CCs to join in a larger organization without necessarily building a settlement.

Another solution would be somehow allow CCs to join in a larger organization without necessarily building a settlement.

CC's should be allowed to BE larger organizations without building a settlement.

Or if not a settlement, some other player made structure:

Hideouts, Forts, Taverns, Towers, etc...

LordDaeron wrote:

Another solution would be somehow allow CCs to join in a larger organization without necessarily building a settlement.

CC's should be allowed to BE larger organizations without building a settlement.

Or if not a settlement, some other player made structure:

Hideouts, Forts, Taverns, Towers, etc...

I don't see why a settlement has to have the physical affectations of a "city," if that's what you're concerned about... There are many different kinds of settlements both in lore and in real life that could work well for a secret organization such as yours. And, really, there are several benefits to having a central, physical location; the only real drawback is that your enemy may discover your location and make you vulnerable by targeting your settlement.

My concern is, it is all about the naming of the umbrella. I want my company name to be attached to all of my members. I don't want to have in the naming: UNC - A, UNC - B and UNC - C

The company maybe and was planned to be broken down into three or more squads or parties.

I'm not sure why this is a concern to you... I thought you wanted to remain hidden. Having "The UnNamed Company" flashing above your head wouldn't be exactly subtle...

I understand the concern for those with plans of large CCs. 20 does seem rather limiting. For my own personal plans in-game, I'm on the opposite end of that spectrum - I plan to work as a single neutral, unaffiliated community networker, promoting community events, community storylines, and working with new players, possibly pointing them in the right direction of whichever CC seems to best fit their play-style. To do this, I will likely remain without attachment to any one settlement. Rather, I hope to be able to wander from one to the next.

My concern is how would someone like me fit into what seems to be an alignment controlled world where if you haven't declared allegiance with a particularly aligned settlement, you're going to be out in the cold. I hope the rules for entering a settlement are not so strict that we turn settlements into alignment driven island of isolation.

Back on track for the thread topic, I hope that by being a neutral party in world politics, that I can be of some service to conflicting settlements and help facilitate peaceful take-overs as are being discussed herein.

@ Bluddwolf

On the other hand, organization in small "cells" has been a successful layout for many terrorist, criminal and spy organizations. If they don't allow bigger CCs, you could organize your guild in several cells. That would be cool and add some interesting flavour IMO.

LordDaeron wrote:

But for bandit organizations and other ones who do not intend to build settlements to be restrict to 20 members is a great drawback. I hope GW rethink it and allow at least 40 members per CC.

Actually in EVE players can have a lot more ships in a fleet than 20, if I remmeber that well, so how can be this analogy precise?

I'd actually prefer to have a CC cap of 60, which is the upper end of what I would consider a medium sized guild. This would also allow for 3 x raid groups of 20.

My concern is, it is all about the naming of the umbrella. I want my company name to be attached to all of my members. I don't want to have in the naming: UNC - A, UNC - B and UNC - C

The company maybe and was planned to be broken down into three or more squads or parties.

What about this for a solution, should be easy to program into the game. Have an alias name for the CCs, which does not need to be unique, but require permission from first CC using the alias name to also make use of the alias name. The alias name would be displayed instead of CC unique name.

Also the CCs can have a friends list, like player characters having friends list. When a CC is a friend of the CC, that can have a common friend chat channel to share communication amongst the friends, thus still allowing the CCs to form a larger organization and have proper communication.

Why is there ANY cap on the membership of a CC? I can't think of any any game with such a low cap.

I hope you intend to allow custom channels

I don't see any in game reason for the cap on the CC membership. the metagame reason is to promote settlements are the primary social structure and I don't feel this is necessary, it can be done through other means.

I think large and powerful CC's (eg Catholic Church, Communist Party, General Motors) could form an integral and interesting social layer of the game. They would have interests in stabilising or destabilising things in various areas. They could work with or against other CC's and settlements to that end.

I understand that a CC has the option of being sponsored by a settlement? What does this mean?

I think there should be an option for a CC to have members from different settlements. If this is not possible then CC's should have some sort of in game alliance ability to make geographically dispersed non settlement based groups viable.

I understand that PFO is looking to make localised events and occurrences more relevant to players and this can be done through settlement membership, giving most characters a primary driver for their behaviour. But that doesn't mean that I could not be a member of a trade/supply network (CC) for instance and feel motivated, with the other members of my CC to head off to some far flung corner of the world to deal with a supply blockage that the local authorities can't or won't handle (maybe the are blockage!)

It will happen anyway even if the game doesn't provide for it so why make it a pain to organise it?

In a separate vein, I think that membership of multiple CC's should be available (at least two, at least one of which can be hidden from scrutiny).

Once again I think I understand the metagame rationale of trying to promote settlement based loyalty and interaction. Just make the benefits of settlement membership high and CC membership lower.

The reality is that people can be and are members of multiple organisations in real life, sports clubs, hobby clubs, religious groups, local interest groups, professional bodies, etc.

Groupings will happen out of game if the game doesn't facilitate them so please don't make it a pain to organise a spy network, a trade network or a secret religious sect.

As of now The Order doesn't plan on owning any sort of land. I would hope that our organization isn't limited to twenty members.

Now if we can create a larger organization that doesn't have to be tied down to a piece of land but have CC of 20 inside of that organization that would be fine.

EDIT: hit enter to soon.

Kard Warstein wrote:

Eve does do this, but eve also allows for hundreds of members in a corporation. Here we're being limited to a small group with the single-CC of 20 or so.

You need to think of a Chartered Company like a Fleet in EVE, not a Corporation. It's just a Fleet that has some element of persistence.

Settlements are the EVE-Analog of Corporations and they'll have hundreds of members (maybe thousands). Kingdoms are the EVE-Analog of Alliances and they'll have thousands of members.

I wonder if there will be a skill you can train that will increase the cap on the size of your company? EVE has this and since it is being modeled after EVE then I'm thinking that might be the direction they're going.

Actually I have a question:

Will people from CCs be able to join another settlement than the one his CC created or joined?

Because, sometimes the CC alignment will be one step from the Settlement's, but some members can be two steps. How will this problem be solved????

Back onto the original topic of this thread. If you could do a peaceful hex transfer it would be pretty cool to see CC pop up whose purpose is to throw down a new settlement in the wilds and pave the way for new ppl to move in. Then sell the land and move onto the next project.

I can see why they are limiting the size, they aren't really designing the game for large scale activity outside of settlement/kingdom warfare, and GW want's to funnel as many people into settlements as they can. I don't think GW wants to see giant loosely connected CC's, they want smaller groups with similar goals that pledge loyalty to mutually beneficial larger groups(settlements).

I think that not having your foot in some territory will seriously gimp your organization. A CC has to base them selves out of somewhere, and I'm guessing there will be a strong encouragement to sever your tie to the NPC settlements as soon as settlements are openly available.

If you don't want to be responsible for maintaining land, I would suggest joining a encompassing group like The Seventh Veil, which is offering non-discriminatory autonomy of their internal organizations with social connections for things like training, crafting and refining facilities.

---

@LordDaeron
A settlement is not the "next step" of a CC. A settlement is it's own entity that 'sponsors' CCs. You don't need to be in a CC to start a settlement, you just need clear territory and start-up capitol. It is not clear if a settlement will reflect the alignment of sponsored CC's, I am guessing it will only reflect the alignment of the individuals on the Settlement Charter.

As much as I like the idea of people putting down roots, becoming members of a settlement, etc., to create a system that doesn't allow for larger CCs seems rather controlling of how players wish to play. My take on sandbox games is that they allow players the freedom to decide their play style. I would love to see several decent sized groups of nomads wandering from settlement to settlement - increasing trade as they go, or causing potential instability by their presence (drain on resources, etc.). Likewise, true mercenary groups might have no interest in being tied down to a particular hex nor having to deal with the time and resource sink that their maintenance will likely create.

What I'm always interested in championing is variety. A sandbox by its nature strives to throw off the constraints of theme park games. I hope this limit of 20 to a CC is not a hard, fast number, but still under consideration.

@Phyllain

Ryan has said you will be able to transfer settement ownership and I can see how this works in the stated mechanics so far. People have already indicated they are intending to start settlements and them sell them on to others.

@ Valkenr

I guess the question is does being a member of a CC sponsored by a settlement mean you are a member of that settlement? (I suspect no, for alignment reasons)

Or can a character be a member of a CC and a settlement at the same time? (I suspect yes refer above)

And, almost the same question as the one above, can the settlement your character is a member of be different from the settlement your CC is sponsored by? (I suspect yes refer above)

While I like the idea of large groups without settlements, I don't think the cap is so crippling. You can always just have several CCs allied together. It's harder to hold an organization together without a base of operations, after all, so it makes sense that the group might be a bit more splintered.

I don't really have much of an opinion here, though.

I can see why they are limiting the size, they aren't really designing the game for large scale activity outside of settlement/kingdom warfare, and GW want's to funnel as many people into settlements as they can. I don't think GW wants to see giant loosely connected CC's, they want smaller groups with similar goals that pledge loyalty to mutually beneficial larger groups(settlements).

I think that not having your foot in some territory will seriously gimp your organization. A CC has to base them selves out of somewhere, and I'm guessing there will be a strong encouragement to sever your tie to the NPC settlements as soon as settlements are openly available.

If you don't want to be responsible for maintaining land, I would suggest joining a encompassing group like The Seventh Veil, which is offering non-discriminatory autonomy of their internal organizations with social connections for things like training, crafting and refining facilities.

I like the idea of fostering an environment whereby people/groups have to make decision about where they stand. Moreover, I think settlements give something tangible from which a community can grow, and become invested in. I also like how this creates a dynamic like the one that the Seventh Veil is morphing into.

What will happen (and is already happening) is that big guilds will create several CCs to play, but in reality will be just one group. So why create such bureaucracy? Lets people have how many members they want w/o cap.

And I still think: If CCs are the equivalent to fleets in EVE, as Ryan said, so they should be bigger, as I've seen fleets of much more than 20 ships in that game. And I played just for 3-4 months, more than 5 years ago.

Bluddwolf wrote:

I'm not sure why this is a concern to you... I thought you wanted to remain hidden. Having "The UnNamed Company" flashing above your head wouldn't be exactly subtle...

Two different things Nikita. While I may not want the UnNamed floating over our heads, that does not mean I don't want 60 or so members in my company.

I don't mind if the max size of a party is 20. But that is handled in a fleet / raid window, not by limiting the guild's size.

Sorry to the OP for taking thread off mark. My take on the OP is that there should be a way to peacefully, but expensively transfer settled hexes. But, there should also be a decay of services for a brief time to reflect the transfer to new management, even if the outgoing and incoming managers were almost identical in all ways.

I would like to hear the Devs thoughts on this'. I can't understand the cap being set so low, it seems, we'll odd. Would like to know their views..

Perhaps the sense of it is to promote inter-CC cooperative play.

If your basic unit of community is small it will provide more player-generated political content while making it more complicated to put together an overwhelming force.

It will be quite difficult for twenty players to dominate the world.

Or maybe the CC cap limitation is a consequence of how much room the chartered company interface has when using the min spec PC. Can only see twenty players and still conduct melee combat.

@ Being

So they will force people who play together in other games in bigger clans (all games I played had at least room for 40 members per clan) to play separated? Lets say we have 24 friends coming to play PFO we leave out 4 of our friends and say "sorry bro, we got no more room for you, go find another CC" or are forced to create 2 CCs with 12 members each? Why?

And from a perspective of role-playing what would prevent a chartered company to have more than 20 members in pathfinder universe?

I see no reasonable reason for that.