@LordDaeron
Alright, maybe I need to elaborate a little further because I seem to have given off a drastically different impression than what I was even talking about.
Basically, I'm thinking specifically to how a game called Stronghold Kingdoms handled this very thing. It was a territory war-like game. there were plots of land much like the hexes in PFO. All the players would have their little town inside the boarders of these hexes.
Each player had a vote in which member of the hex ran the perish, which was the hex government village if you will. From there you could set tax rate, and construct buildings that would give boons to every player's town inside the hex.
Now, the elected player who ran the perish was limited to which building could be built; so either they would serve their own interests and choose what was 'needed', or put it to a vote. Once the buildings were selected, they required increasing amounts of materials to be built/upgraded. Which was done through donations. The players living inside the Hex were the only ones who could donate/upgrade these buildings. If you viewed the town perish page, you could see recent donations from other players, and what they were donating.
I don't mean to imply that there is a server wide announcement that you've donated gold in any way. In fact, I'm thinking specifically of raw materials when I suggest donations. Enemies wouldn't have access to any of that information unless they had a spy as a member of your company, as the donation record is only available to the players working towards growing their settlement. That kind of info would be good to have. "Oh, I can see LordDaeron has been making frequent deposits of wood this week, I'll work on gathering stone because that seems like it'll be the bottleneck of our production". That sort of thing.
And if we can visually see a well-developed settlement, I think it'll be safe to assume that the people living inside it are well off or have a strong economic power. Not that I think that will actually lead to robberies, anyway. I envision most buildings to require massive amounts of raw resources, not gold. Just because you build a massive church in your settlement, doesn't mean you carry anything of value on your person at any given time.
Goblin Squad Member
|
This could be an argument for why players would have an incentive to sell their goods in their own shop or through a communication channel. If they wanted to sell on their own and circumvent the market/AH, they wouldn't have to pay the tax.I take issue with settlements setting their own tax rate and pocketing those taxes for themselves. Ultimately, 1 player is pocketing ALL of the tax on good faith that it will be put towards the betterment of the settlement... which can get a little shady on its own. The second part of this is: Will settlements even require a monetary upkeep at all? I'd rather see them require resources and skills. Need to fix or build better walls? - Better quarry some stone and wood and build them. The third part is: a 'reasonable' tax rate is subjective. The leader(s) of a settlement might be really ambitious and be willing to tax 10% of market sales in order to build more. But maybe other players might not agree. What if the crafters can only afford 5%? Do they just leave the settlement? What if outside players don't want to pay 10% when 'settlement B' two hexes over only taxes 5% - you'd essentially drive away your own business.
I think a tax the settlement places on its residents is something that should be done at the player level and independent of any built-in game mechanic like the AH. The leader(s) simply ask each player to pay their rent at the end of the day/week/month. Players can then donate money/goods/services in a manner relative to their playstyle - Not everyone will spend significant amounts of time on the market anyway, in which the tax system fails the settlement in that regard.
I think these are all things one will consider before joining a settlement.
I definitely think there will be some settlements that depend more on donations than others. I hope there is the ability to donate anonymously. I hope there is the ability to publish donation stats somewhere in a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ultimately, 1 player is pocketing ALL of the tax on good faith that it will be put towards the betterment of the settlement...
That is not true.
Put It in Writing describes a variety of governance options for a Settlement. It's possible to create a Democracy where every expenditure of Tax Money will be voted on by all Settlement members.
@LordDaeron
Alright, maybe I need to elaborate a little further because I seem to have given off a drastically different impression than what I was even talking about.
Basically, I'm thinking specifically to how a game called Stronghold Kingdoms handled this very thing. It was a territory war-like game. there were plots of land much like the hexes in PFO. All the players would have their little town inside the boarders of these hexes.
Each player had a vote in which member of the hex ran the perish, which was the hex government village if you will. From there you could set tax rate, and construct buildings that would give boons to every player's town inside the hex.
Now, the elected player who ran the perish was limited to which building could be built; so either they would serve their own interests and choose what was 'needed', or put it to a vote. Once the buildings were selected, they required increasing amounts of materials to be built/upgraded. Which was done through donations. The players living inside the Hex were the only ones who could donate/upgrade these buildings. If you viewed the town perish page, you could see recent donations from other players, and what they were donating.
I don't mean to imply that there is a server wide announcement that you've donated gold in any way. In fact, I'm thinking specifically of raw materials when I suggest donations. Enemies wouldn't have access to any of that information unless they had a spy as a member of your company, as the donation record is only available to the players working towards growing their settlement. That kind of info would be good to have. "Oh, I can see LordDaeron has been making frequent deposits of wood this week, I'll work on gathering stone because that seems like it'll be the bottleneck of our production". That sort of thing.
And if we can visually see a well-developed settlement, I think it'll be safe to assume that the people living inside it are well off or have a strong economic power. Not that I think that will...
I like the idea of having buildings that are being built, including what's planned, are shown on a separate menu that members have access to. It would help for people to be able to see the materials being used, and needed for building. I'm fine with showing who's donating what, but having an anonymous donation option is fine as well.
Ultimately, 1 player is pocketing ALL of the tax on good faith that it will be put towards the betterment of the settlement...That is not true.
Put It in Writing describes a variety of governance options for a Settlement. It's possible to create a Democracy where every expenditure of Tax Money will be voted on by all Settlement members.
I didn't come to the same assumption you did after reading that.
*This enables the organization to ward against the unwanted use or removal of key assets. It complicates their use, but also protects the members of the organization against unscrupulous actions—to some degree—depending on how voting power is concentrated in the organization.
I see that people will be able to vote on changing how things are set. But if a settlement is set so that a small handful have access to the coffers, they could still abuse that position until (if ever) a vote changes their privileges. I'm betting the founders of a settlement (probably a company) will set the rules that they want - And likely weigh their votes so they can keep things in line with their vision. I'm betting you're more likely to see Oligarchy or Feudal-like settlements early in this game. A true democracy is the riskiest governance for the founders of a settlement - as they could likely be ousted from power or the settlement itself... or simply hand partial control of assets to a person outside the original founders.
It would suck to have someone tax you at a rate you had no say in (set at the declaration of the settlement), and see your taxed money misappropriated/lost.
I like the donation idea better because it is voluntary. Each player is able to contribute at a rate that is relative to their means/goals.
In a game like PFO, things can change from day to day. If a settlement is nearing a total needed to build something I might say "Hey, change my tax rate to 50%, and lets see if we can reach this goal buy the end of the day!". Maybe I might get assassinated or S.A.D'd multiple times and lose a TON of items/money; I'd like to request that my tax be lowered for a while so I can try to recuperate from my loses.
Maybe meet somewhere in the middle? Perhaps the settlement sets a minimum tax rate that can't exceed something like 10%. Leave it up to the players to adjust their tax rate above the minimum if they so wish.
Cliffs:
-If I'm going to lose my investment in a settlement (be it corruption, or war, or w/e), it would be nice knowing I lost something that was my decision to invest. It's better to gamble (even a really safe bet) with money that you have to lose, rather than risk what someone else thinks you should.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see settlements requiring raw materials for upkeep. With that, I would like to see a menu that settlement members could access that would show which materials upkeep requires and the current stock of those materials. Finally, a community depository for easy donation would be snappy.
Getting back to the thread topic...I still want public shops. :)
I would like to see settlements requiring raw materials for upkeep. With that, I would like to see a menu that settlement members could access that would show which materials upkeep requires and the current stock of those materials. Finally, a community depository for easy donation would be snappy.
Getting back to the thread topic...I still want public shops. :)
I'm totally with you, I think these additions would really help bring a sense of the player (settlement member) being more a part of the settlement then any other game that's out now.
I guess I'm pushing for a SWG type vendor setup because it would solve a couple of issues at once by giving the players a way to sell goods that doesn't require them to "man" the shop, as well as allowing for vendors to be placed outside settlement walls. This would help during sieges, allowing crafters to buy and sell more of their goods on location then forcing them to journey back to a settlement each time.
I recall the process for stocking and setting the price of goods was easy and the NPC's price either base or rental could be adjusted so that the Devs could regulate their usage. It could even be set up to where goods are added to the vendors sales stock as they are produced if you've Qued up production runs and both facilities are located within the same settlement.
Actually there is a RPG called The Guild 2 that features player run businesses and the politics that go along with it. I think that the game offers a lot of features that PRO could benefit from incorporating.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will certainly be opportunities for abuse, as has been proven in other games in the not too distant past. I was not involved in this event but there is a very famous event (in the sandbox MMO world of EVE, and it is well known throughout gaming) where someone got access to a huge and very rich corporations assets and took everything.
There was a large group of corporations that made up an alliance called Band of Brothers. As I understand it (Ryan was there, he can correct me) this one individual was out in space doing his thing and he was attacked by a member of BoB (as it was known) and his ship destroyed. Some time later this same person was out again and saw another ship pilot getting attacked so he jumped in and helped him out, running off the pirates.
As it turns out, the guy he helped was in BoB, so our guy was asked to tag along. Eventually he met other members of BoB and was invited to become a member too. Over a long period of time, he was given more responsibilities and was finally given the keys to the kingdom, being a very well liked and trusted member of the corporation and the alliance.
Little did the rest of the alliance know, that early ship attack still festered in our guy's gut, so one day he found himself with complete and unfettered access to the entire treasury of the entire alliance. Should he take it or keep his newfound friends and let bygones be bygones?
As the story goes, he took EVERYTHING, leaving the entire alliance in a state of bankruptcy without a single ISK to their name. It really caused the destruction of (at the time) the most powerful alliance in space, and virtually destroyed several corporations. It became quite a controversial scene in gaming, and a catastrophe for the involved parties in EVE.
The moral of the story is, be very careful who you give access to your treasury, even if you trust them. Having some safeguards set up to prevent your financial destruction is a very good idea, as history has shown.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hardin,
That would make the case for withdrawal caps on a CC's/settlement's/nation's resources. Some games, such as Rift, have such limitations in guild banks. For investments requiring large withdrawals of cash or resources, there could be a simple voting override requiring a set number of member votes to initiate such a withdrawal. Even that could be abused, but it would take a significant orchestration on the part of the abusers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Meadhros,
Don't get me wrong - I have no desire to play in a game where everything is so safe that there is no chance for risk. I do think there should be significant safeguards so that every minute of the game doesn't become a paranoid mess. However, if you're going to have a realistic, interactive world, you have to allow for the possibility of betrayal, theft, etc. Like most things, we need a happy (and if you're on the receiving end, sometimes not so happy) medium.
As an example, in the early days of Ultima Online, when you had to have your house key in your backpack to get into your unlocked house, I owned the smallest house available in the game just outside the capital city. While standing at the bank, a thief lifted my key. He found my house and stole everything. Was I perturbed - certainly. Did I complain to a GM - no. What it taught me was that I needed to move to a less thief-ridden location. I moved to Yew, established my community center, and it was the best decision I ever made in that game - so in a sense, I owed that thief quite a lot.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One problem EVE has is that the system of controlling who has what access to which parts of a corporation's assets is really opaque. And there are not enough checks in the system against one lone operator screwing the whole corporation in a fit of pique or through social engineering. Lesson learned.
I suspect that most Settlements will have shared power so that votes are required for major actions, and that accounts will be set up to require two steps before large amounts of Coin can be disbursed, and really valuable assets will require votes before being sold (or even used). These systems reflect the lesson for EVE that if it is overly confusing and hard to have good internal controls, then the result is abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@clynx
I can only say again: Don't join a settlement that has taxes or a government structure that you don't like.
Every settlement has voting. You vote with your feet. It is always your decision where you invest and what rate you invest at. Limiting the options that players have when creating a settlement does more harm than good when you can always just join another.
Like I said, I expect there will exist settlements that have little or no tax and rely heavily on member donations. It is my hope that the Caeruxi Khaiognos of The Seventh Veil will be able to function this way, in fact.
A true democracy may be risky, as you say, but it will also attract players that want to have a say in their governance, much like you and myself. I think that our strength may be that we create a desirable place to set down your roots, and so we will have a strong, quickly-growing community. I hope that we will be able to hold votes that have no consequence so that our elected leaders can put to a vote any issue we can imagine.
One problem EVE has is that the system of controlling who has what access to which parts of a corporation's assets is really opaque. And there are not enough checks in the system against one lone operator screwing the whole corporation in a fit of pique or through social engineering. Lesson learned.
I suspect that most Settlements will have shared power so that votes are required for major actions, and that accounts will be set up to require two steps before large amounts of Coin can be disbursed, and really valuable assets will require votes before being sold (or even used). These systems reflect the lesson for EVE that if it is overly confusing and hard to have good internal controls, then the result is abuse.
Ah thanks for the answers Ryan! :) although we say often that PFO will use this or that system that Eve came up with, I think the resulting product will be much better then Eve's system because you guys can start out avoiding mistakes Eve has to work around to implement.
It makes me wonder if democracies with thrive at all in PFO. It'll definitely be an interesting social experiment.
If Ryan makes big decision spending require votes, it sounds like settlements might get bogged down by too much administration. Imagine a war time scenario. You have a dictatorship settlement where 1 person runs the show. They can build and spend as fast as (s)he has the resources to. A democratic settlement facing a declaration of war from this other settlement might not be as quick to get the war machine into production.
How long are voting periods? I imagine a 12-24 hour period for a vote would be realistic if all members are to allowed to vote. People shouldn't be penalized just because they were offline at the moment a vote was called. Do absentees count as a vote against? or omitted? If omitted, couldn't someone call a vote when major stake holders are known to be absent in an attempt to usurp or circumvent others who share control? There is a lot to take into consideration, and I don't envy the job the devs have at divining the perfect formula.
I think in war, a democratic state would probably need quicker action. At which point they'd likely hand control over to 1 person... I wonder if they'll hand that power back? lol
@Kakafika,
Certainly, the player can choose a settlement based on it's tax rate. My issue is, there are so many other factors that go into settlement choice. What alignment do you want for yourself? What alignment do you want in a settlement? What are the settlement's laws/goals/priorities? Where is it's geographical location? Is is close to a massive alliance bent on conquering all? or close to a major trade hub? Is it close to where your friends are? etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a diverse democratic settlement has an inherently higher rate of production it will all come out in the wash anyway.
It is generally thought less efficient to decide things by committee, but I urge the consideration that not all committees are equal.
Let me now avoid several political statements and refrain from tendering my point of view.
Now that that is out of the way, it is possible for the right people to work together coherently in committee, it just has to be the right people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does this still require travel, yes, in both directions. Sellers would need to have someone (not necessarily them) post the add on the board
They've said that there will be 'hidden' NPCs doing some crafting tasks, so I doubt they'd require a player to personally run to a bulletin board in a starter town. Even if they did, it wouldn't see much use by anyone living more than a couple hexes away. It would be easy for someone to set up an out-of-game site that let crafters post their goods, prices, and location, along with a date of posting. This applies to any form of communication or information resources, really. If it isn't easily accessible in-game, people will migrate it out-of-game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I very much like the idea of players being able to run their own markets, as well as the possibility of skills influencing range of access to market information, I dont think its that immersion breaking quite frankly. If we were talking about a true medieval setting, as has been mentioned, then I would agree. But were talking about a fantasy setting with a generally medieval level of technology. Diviners, scryers and magic items would all be perfectly viable and reasonable explanations for the ease of information. This is basically the NPC network working behind the scenes since you can only request this information at settlements/towns/hubs.
One change from the EVE system that I would definately like to see is not being able to buy at any kind of range. I think that is more immersion breaking than the information access. Not to mention I know of cases where this can be misleading and/or frustrating for new players if the UI doesnt clearly show that they are purchasing remotely. If it is allowed it should only be allowed by training certain skills or by paying a premium fee (representing leveraging the NPC's contacts to purchase the item for you, but it still requires you to go pick it up or issue a courier contract).
TLDR: Creative and intelligent magic use can explain most things; No to remote buying
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't come to the same assumption you did after reading that.Ultimately, 1 player is pocketing ALL of the tax on good faith that it will be put towards the betterment of the settlement...That is not true.
Put It in Writing describes a variety of governance options for a Settlement. It's possible to create a Democracy where every expenditure of Tax Money will be voted on by all Settlement members.
It sounded like you came to the assumption that there would always be 1 player in control of all the tax revenue. It's not an "assumption" on my part that this will not always be the case. It's very clearly spelled out.
Yes, it will be possible for a Settlement to set itself up so that 1 player is in control of all the tax revenue, but that's not really what you were saying, is it?
While I very much like the idea of players being able to run their own markets, as well as the possibility of skills influencing range of access to market information, I dont think its that immersion breaking quite frankly. If we were talking about a true medieval setting, as has been mentioned, then I would agree. But were talking about a fantasy setting with a generally medieval level of technology. Diviners, scryers and magic items would all be perfectly viable and reasonable explanations for the ease of information. This is basically the NPC network working behind the scenes since you can only request this information at settlements/towns/hubs.
One change from the EVE system that I would definately like to see is not being able to buy at any kind of range. I think that is more immersion breaking than the information access. Not to mention I know of cases where this can be misleading and/or frustrating for new players if the UI doesnt clearly show that they are purchasing remotely. If it is allowed it should only be allowed by training certain skills or by paying a premium fee (representing leveraging the NPC's contacts to purchase the item for you, but it still requires you to go pick it up or issue a courier contract).
TLDR: Creative and intelligent magic use can explain most things; No to remote buying
I'm in agreement with this, totally. While it can be logiced around to explain how players can know about market info in surrounding settlements. But being able to purchase goods remotely just doesn't sound right even for a setting with magic. If its inevitable that remote purchasing will happen, then I agree with linking it to upper tier skill training.
It sounded like you came to the assumption that there would always be 1 player in control of all the tax revenue. It's not an "assumption" on my part that this will not always be the case. It's very clearly spelled out.I didn't come to the same assumption you did after reading that.Ultimately, 1 player is pocketing ALL of the tax on good faith that it will be put towards the betterment of the settlement...That is not true.
Put It in Writing describes a variety of governance options for a Settlement. It's possible to create a Democracy where every expenditure of Tax Money will be voted on by all Settlement members.
Just for funzies, lets include the sentence that came before the one you quoted: "I take issue with settlements setting their own tax rate and pocketing those taxes for themselves."
I think we're arguing semantics here. Replace "1 player" with "1 interest group" - Those who actually control the settlement. My assumption is what players will do, not what the game allows for. In every MMORPG I've ever played; Guild banks, invite, kick, disband, and chat privileges have had very restricted access - despite there being an option to give all members unrestricted access. Mainly because just about anyone can join, and you don't know anything about who they are when they join. The people who are the founders of a guild/company care the most about that guild and will protect it. It's their creation. Much like a company founding a settlement; those members will retain control over their settlement. When I say "Ultimately 1 person", I'm generally speaking to the entity that put themselves in power. You're right; It could be more than 1 person, it could be 10. But I'm betting those majority stakeholders belong to a group that share the same goal/interest. And so, how many there are is a moot point - they are unified. That group who are the majority stakeholders can change the rules of the settlement at any time.
I honestly don't think this game can truly have an open democracy. How long would that last? Enough players with a common agenda (any company with enough members) could vote to take control of that 'complete democracy'. And I wouldn't put it past any group to pull it off. I have no doubt there will be a group of players who look for absolute democratic settlements, join it, vote themselves in power, and loot everything that's not nailed down. This isn't just hypothetical. I post on an Internet forum that does this regularly. Someone makes a thread about a territory/kingdom domination game - dozens to hundreds of members of the forum join the game and work towards a common goal. They don't always ally themselves in game under a common banner. Nobody in the game knows they are one large entity until they've taken over from within. There's plenty of large forum communities to choose from: 4chan, SA, reddit... these groups are always looking to make a huge impact in a game and stir up drama. So yes, I absolutely expect every settlement to be founded by a group that retains a controlling stake in that settlement; any company that doesn't will likely regret that decision sooner or later. But my problem isn't the founders getting screwed; it's all the members who had been taxed that become collateral damage in such an event.
Yes, it will be possible for a Settlement to set itself up so that 1 player is in control of all the tax revenue, but that's not really what you were saying, is it?
What I was really saying was that the members being taxed are not a part of the group who retain control of the settlement (bold to emphasize the context of what you quoted me on). If the player is putting their faith in the controlling entity of the settlement (taxes being appropriated accordingly), then its only fair for the settlement to place it's faith in the player (taxes being volunteered by the player at a rate the player chooses). At any time either party is not satisfied by the other, they can back out. Either the settlement removes the member not donating at a rate reasonable to the settlement, or the player leaves the settlement if they feel taxes are being mismanaged. And in the event of a disaster (loss from war/corruption/etc), all parties had control in their investment from the start. Seems like a fair balance of power.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Who knows! We could see some Kingdoms form if the person controlling that vast sum of cash can draw in enough participants. I don't expect they'd stick around long, but if the ruler was a benevolent one, they might.
Could see some settlements go for a full-on Constitutional Government. That'd be a great experiment to see how it turns out.
I think most will, for the sake of timely voting and some control over the funds go for an oligarchy, but a democracy might be popular as well.
Should be fun!
I still vote for player owned shops with an NPC shopkeeper. Might not be practical until we see more details on the mechanics of the individual structures and NPCs, but it'd be more realistic.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Settlements will likely set the tax rate on transactions in the market low enough to keep people form worrying about it too much, and high enough to ensure a steady stream of profits for the organization. Too high, and people will avoid that market. Too low, and the Settlement will be leaving easy income on the table.
Some Settlements will probably jack the tax rate up really high, to discourage outsiders from using the market, but I think that's a self-defeating tactic in the long run. And some Settlements may go with a zero tax rate because they want to encourage as much use of their market as possible under the theory that being a hub of economic activity has all sorts of other profit-making opportunities embedded in it.
Taxes will likely change rapidly when a Settlement is engaged in a struggle for territory. Wars are expensive. They might change in response to competition from nearby Settlements - a "price war" could easily break out on tax rates. Likewise, a political deal might see a Settlement raise its tax rates to enforce a local cartel.
The permutations are endless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan,
Glad you are coming in and checking the forums and posting often. That is an awesome thing to be doing on a consistent basis. I know they are busy, but it'd be nice to see a little more of the other team members out here once in a while. I have seen a few posts here and there, but they seem to be pretty rare in the last 6 weeks or so.
Busy, busy bees!
Having AHs disguised as a market place is a real disappointment, killing the fantasy atmosphere of the game. In EVE it makes sense, as the setting is past the Information Age. In Fantasy only setting, the Information Age is still very far away. Still to what happens in a Fantasy / Medieval setting, no stock exchanges, no auction houses, etc. Just good old travelling to the shops, looking at the items of ONLY that shop, where almost al prices listed are not fixed, generally bartering possible.
Yes, nothing can be done about out of game meta data tools and methods. Please just keep the Information Age out of the in game Fantasy Setting.
Frankly I don't see the programming complication of having only players shops with individual goods lists, to having a central AH goods list. They essentially have the same background components. There are many MMOs where there is only players and NPC shops that have individual good lists. So there frankly no excuse for getting rid of Information Age Auction Houses out of the in-game Fantasy setting. If the players want to have Information Age technologies, they can have it out of game using what ever methods they like. You never block meta-game information from existing.
According to the wiki, auctions were recorded as early as 500BC. So, fantasy setting, normally out "dark ages," ie the fall of the Roman Empire, it would be more than capable that auctions exist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
According to the wiki, auctions were recorded as early as 500BC. So, fantasy setting, normally out "dark ages," ie the fall of the Roman Empire, it would be more than capable that auctions exist.
PFO is set on Golarion, so Earth history is irrelevant (unless you're someone like Baba Yaga).
Also, there's a big difference between an auction held in a settlement's marketplace that might be 100' across, and one that extends across the entire world like themeparks tend to have.