Goblin Squad Member
|
I know some 'groups' who have been working toward the settlement level organization. As is being discussed elsewhere, this will probably require allowing CCs to be sponsored by your settlement. I expect there will be quite a bit of variation between settlements in how much they allow CCs to:
- Maintain their own identity and lore (as opposed to being forced to join the central group, even if OOG)
- Access to the decision making process of the settlement
- Taxation
- Access to internal contracts
- Forced compliance to settlement ROE and "drafts" for defence
- Be completely autonomous (other than ROE).
- Selectiveness of sponsorship, ease of application process
- Use of settlement facilities
And, will there be:
- Membership and participation strictly in-game versus some out of game component such as an ability or even requirement to register/participate outside the game.
- Existence of tiers of CCs
I would be curious to hear from all the perspective settlement organizers on their initial thoughts on the above.
I can't speak for the settlement our CC (Keepers of the Circle) is founding, but I can say that our proposed NG settlement will operate under the principal of freedom for its residents, and CCs. As well as our goal of having a 0 tax rate.
The settlements decisions will be done openly and accepting the opinions of any interested resident.
I'm fairly sure our application process would be very onerous or overly lengthy.
All facilities like training and civic structures should be open to all residents.
Everyone will have a place in defense of the settlement, that's about the only thing "we" would require of residents. We plan to offer optional military training for anyone wishing to learn formation warfare. The defense of the settlement is a concern to all it's residents, it must be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any requirement for sponsored CCs to be residents? Any restrictions of where they cannot be residents?
And just so I understand you, are you saying you will have group military training available for those interested...but defensive service is obligatory. Would Keepers of the Circle be able to make the call of when this is required? And finally, rules mean little without repercussions for breaking them, what if a CC does not assist in a common call for defence?
Would this rule make it so you would not sponsor a clan of pacifist crafters/harvesters/RPers?
Sorry, not picking, I am just really curious how others intend to handle these issues (we will all need to deal with these types of questions...imagine a game with real consequences...cool).
Any requirement for sponsored CCs to be residents? Any restrictions of where they cannot be residents?
And just so I understand you, are you saying you will have group military training available for those interested...but defensive service is obligatory. Would Keepers of the Circle be able to make the call of when this is required? And finally, rules mean little without repercussions for breaking them, what if a CC does not assist in a common call for defence?
Would this rule make it so you would not sponsor a clan of pacifist crafters/harvesters/RPers?
Sorry, not picking, I am just really curious how others intend to handle these issues (we will all need to deal with these types of questions...imagine a game with real consequences...cool).
I understand where your coming from. The thing is I'm just a member of the CC, yes I'm one of the wardens (the leading counsel) but most of your questions haven't come up and I can't really take it upon myself to answer them, if you see what I mean. We've been real confused about the number of residents a settlement can have, thankfully Ryan was able to provide us with at least an early estimation of +\- 1000. So now that we know this we can plan further.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The UnNamed Company will decide, when we get closer to Early Entry, of we will remain nomadic, join a settlement or create our own.
Regardless of which choice we choose, our company will always put our company's interests first. This is not to say we will not be a valuable asset to a settlement we join, we will ensure that we are.
The UnNamed Company will generate great wealth and near limitless enthusiasm and adventure, to any settlement we join.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
how much they allow CCs to:
[1]- Maintain their own identity and lore (as opposed to being forced to join the central group, even if OOG)
[2]- Access to the decision making process of the settlement
[3]- Taxation
[4]- Access to internal contracts
[5]- Forced compliance to settlement ROE and "drafts" for defence
[6]- Be completely autonomous (other than ROE).
[7]- Selectiveness of sponsorship, ease of application process
[8]- Use of settlement facilitiesAnd, will there be:
[9]- Membership and participation strictly in-game versus some out of game component such as an ability or even requirement to register/participate outside the game.
[10]- Existence of tiers of CCs
First, it's way too early to really nail down much of this, and these are largely my personal opinions and not necessarily the official position of The Seventh Veil. I'll always try to make it very clear when I'm speaking on behalf of T7V.
1. This is official - as close as we can reasonably get to 100% autonomy for Members and Affiliate Companies alike. In general, we'll never require anyone to do anything they don't want to do. So, if you're a pure crafter, and our Settlement is about to be destroyed, no one in leadership will be giving you a guilt trip for not PvP'ing to defend it. We expect we'll have plenty of people who want to participate in that kind of stuff.
2. As yet, still relatively unknown. Personally, I think we'll find and promote players who take an interest in leadership decisions and who demonstrate a willingness to make personal sacrifices in order to help others or the guild at large. However, there will always be the Stewards' Conclave to ensure we adhere to the founding principles.
3. Very much up in the air. Some of our Stewards want zero or minimal taxation. Personally, I'm much more in favor of reasonable taxation and building a sizable treasure that can be used in times of crisis to minimize the need to radically alter tax policy.
4. Very much unknown.
5. We're going to be subject to many game mechanics that are not yet really understood. We're going to have to worry about Alignment and Reputation because the game will make us. We'll do that as needed in-game. Out-of-game, we're open to pretty much anything. See #1 with respect to "drafts".
6. See #1.
7. See #5. Personally, I'm thinking more along the lines of "shall issue" than "may issue". Practically, this means I'd personally like to Sponsor any Company until they demonstrate that they shouldn't be sponsored. Again, personally, this ties into #1.
8. We're very excited about the prospect of being a Center of Learning that is utilized by a very wide sampling of the player base. Obviously, this will be subject to a lot of systems that haven't yet been designed, so I'm hesitant to make promises, but we sure think this would be cool and fit very well with T7V's Mission.
9. Again, personally, and again this ties into #1, I would like to see sponsored Companies and Members be able to participate and contribute in whatever ways they wish without ever having to register or check any external web sites. I'm not sure that will be practical, since it certainly makes sense for GW to forego developing things like event calendars since those are so readily available on the web.
10. Completely unknown. In reality, different players will make different contributions, and I'm personally not very inclined to treat everyone as if their contributions are exactly the same. However, that's not to say every Member of Affiliated Company will be constantly judged by their contributions; it's a simple recognition of human nature.
Going into a little more detail on #10 with my personal vision, we plan to have big list of in-game events that our own Members and the Members of Affiliated Companies (henceforth, simply Members) can access in order to find something to do. That list will also largely be populated by Members. Standard human nature will apply to a large degree with respect to which events draw large crowds. Popular Members will probably draw more attendance than less popular Members. However, for any Members (including Members of Affiliated Companies) who want to be more in a position of leadership, we'll be looking very closely at how much personal sacrifice they make to help others get their events completed. So, hopefully, what we'll end up with is a large organization that is largely self-organizing to get a lot of different things done, with a core of very committed leaders who make sure that the events on the edges don't fall through the cracks. I personally believe in the dignity of freedom enough to very strongly resist any attempts to try to force general Members to do any particular thing. I also personally believe in charity and sacrifice and helping others, and I am convinced that displaying those traits voluntarily will make a big impact on the people who are helped. So, we'll never force anyone to do anything, but we'll lead by example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's one other thing I'd like to point out.
T7V is also committed to documenting and publicly sharing the things we do and the information we discover. Some Guilds might want to keep their "business practices" a secret in order to maintain a competitive edge. Personally, I will judge our success more by how often we're emulated by other organizations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon, thanks for T7V stance. As a clarification, all of my questions were referring specifically to how sponsored CCs who might not necessarily be members of T7V would be treated. So, for question #2, Would T7V consider giving the autonomous CC "Born Again Chrafters" who you just sponsored, a vote/voice in the decision making process of the relevant settlement (how about if 100% of the members decide to also move to the settlement? 50%?, 0%?)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KitNyx, I think my answer applies to to CCs as well as direct Members. In essence, it's still largely unknown how we'll handle those situations. We can talk in fairly clear terms about how we'll handle these kinds of decisions out-of-game, but in-game is an entirely different matter and there's simply not enough information to make me comfortable setting expectations.
I expect we'll be sponsoring a number of CCs who simply don't want the headache of worrying about leadership decisions. I expect we'll sponsor some CCs that are led by very strong-willed, charismatic players who are very interested not only in securing their own position, but also in having a hand in the guidance of T7V as a whole. We'll have to adapt to those situations as they arise, and our ability to do that well will be a large factor in determining whether or not we succeed.
I'm quite certain that the first several CCs that join us will help us figure out how to do that well. I certainly hope we've made it clear that we want to sponsor Chartered Companies in a relationship that guarantees their autonomy to the maximum extent feasible in-game. We're in active talks with a number of different CCs, and I'm hoping that we can build up interest with others.
I'm also hopeful that Ryan's recent post in Settlement mechanics will prompt more CCs to recognize the need to join a larger organization, and I hope that T7V remains an attractive option in that regard.
I think a lot of people are thinking "my Settlement will be about crafting" or "my Settlement will be about robbing others", etc.
You need to think about your Settlement in broader terms. To be successful, you'll need groups within your Settlement that are harvesters, crafters, explorers, adventurers, soldiers and teamsters. You may have a certain goal for what you or a small group of characters that work with you will do, but Settlements require you to be extremely cross-functional.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon, thanks for the clarification.
I agree it is early...but many groups are already forming up and considering "partnering" with larger/other entities toward common goals (especially in light of the blog). I also know some groups, such as T7V, EO, and Pax (for example, no slight intended to any I missed) are actually intending to be that larger entity that smaller entities can be sponsored by. For me, were I a CC planning my identity in-game, the information above, even if preliminary, would be at least as important as the lore and alignment we hope to pursue. If becoming sponsored is a requirement, I would want to know what the settlements have planned at this stage, so I can jump in and help them form their policies...if we intend to grow together.
If I want to maintain my CCs identity and autonomy, but as a contributing associate of a settlement I also wanted a vote in the running of that settlement, then who I partner with becomes very important. If, as a contributing associate of a settlement, I want my CC members to have access to internal contracts (for content), then that is something I need to insure my prospective settlement allows me...even if some of my members do not want to (or can't) join the settlement.
More importantly, specifically because it is early, the more we think about and discuss these ideas, the more we can go to GW with questions and requests. Perhaps things they had not considered. For instance, democracy is a government option, how about Corporatocracy? Can we get the option to allow sponsored CC to run the settlement? Or...perhaps also an option of a blend of Democracy and Corporatocracy.
EDIT: A Coporatocracy might seem silly to our modern sensibilities, but in much of human histories, where direct influence by "nobles" was lacking, guilds held power in towns. I think such a settlement would be kinda cool, your "CC Council" approves the addition of other CCs and makes decisions on the well being of the settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can anyone say Military-Industrial Complex?
This does not need to be the case, many CCs will probably be small family based organizations. What this setup would allow is a large conglomerate of those small CCs to join forces toward a common goal. I actually see it just as likely turning out to be a hippee commune as a Military-Industrial Complex. Of course, it would allow for that too if they so wished.
@KitNyx, rule by the wealthy is called a Plutocracy.
I am not sure of the relevance. Of course, only allowing the individuals who make the biggest annual contributions to the settlement the right to vote would also be a possible style of government (as we all know).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You mentioned a "Corprotacracy" where the settlement is run by guilds.
Now that I think about it, what you were really talking about is an Oligarchy in the form of a high council.
Coincidentally, this is exactly how the Pax Mercatorum intends to run. Probably.
No I was not. What I was suggesting was a settlement governed by the very CCs it sponsors...versus an oligarchy, a Council of rich/elected/ranked residents.
CCs are not temporary teams or parties, they are smaller self governing. self chosen associations of players. They are relatively permanent social structures.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No I was not. What I was suggesting was a settlement governed by the very CCs it sponsors...versus an oligarchy, a Council of rich/elected/ranked residents.
You could certainly set it up that way, by only giving votes/positions of power to the representatives of sponsored CCs (those representatives would have to be residents though).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You mentioned a "Corprotacracy" where the settlement is run by guilds.
Now that I think about it, what you were really talking about is an Oligarchy in the form of a high council.
Coincidentally, this is exactly how the Pax Mercatorum intends to run. Probably.
No I was not. What I was suggesting was a settlement governed by the very CCs it sponsors...versus an oligarchy, a Council of rich/elected/ranked residents.
CCs are not temporary teams or parties, they are smaller self governing. self chosen associations of players. They are relatively permanent social structures.
Oligarchy means rule by the few, which has no implication of wealth, election, or rank.
Now, I may have misunderstood what you meant. I was under the impression that a representative from each CC would be on some kind of high council.
Did you mean that every member of every sponsored CC is a voting member of the settlement? If so you are limiting voting power to members of the sponsored companies (you can be a citizen without being a member of a CC). If everyone gets to vote that is just a pure Democracy.
I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to understand your proposal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*laugh* No, but it is not important. We are getting off the point of this discussion.
Questions, OP, self-proclaimed kingdoms, thoughts?
If I'm understanding your question, in a roundabout way, it is... "Where does the power lay?"
Do we identify and follow the lead of our company, or our settlement? Who gains more from whom, the companies that make up the settlement, or the settlement made up of multiple companies?
Here we already have "Self Proclaimed Kingdoms" (I sense your mocking tone) and yet it is unclear if settlements will remain stable enough to maintain themselves, let along a King to maintain control over several settlements.
So who shall be the first "King" in the River Kingdoms of PFO?
I'll let this last question simmer for a while, but I expect the sound of crickets will be chirping for some time.
.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*laugh* No, but it is not important. We are getting off the point of this discussion.
Questions, OP, self-proclaimed kingdoms, thoughts?
If I'm understanding your question, in a roundabout way, it is... "Where does the power lay?"
Do we identify and follow the lead of our company, or our settlement? Who gains more from whom, the companies that make up the settlement, or the settlement made up of multiple companies?
Here we already have "Self Proclaimed Kingdoms" (I sense your mocking tone) and yet it is unclear if settlements will remain stable enough to maintain themselves, let along a King to maintain control over several settlements.
So who shall be the first "King" in the River Kingdoms of PFO?
I'll let this last question simmer for a while, but I expect the sound of crickets will be chirping for some time.
.
Oh, no mocking intended, seriously. I have been involved in developing two of those "kingdoms"...one of which I was arguably the founding member.
But I actually misspoke, I meant "self proclaimed settlements". And that clarified, I am only trying to layout a discussion on how these groups who intend to run settlements, intend to deal and treat with sponsored CCs. And, in addition to inviting discussion, I was hoping the "Settlements" would lay out their initial positions and thoughts; answering the questions in the initial post.
My goal is to have this information as a reference so as the "ma&pa" CCs start forming up, they can gravitate toward working with one of the settlement groups...the one that fits their needs and desires best.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Before we can figure out how a settlement will run, we need to know who can make war against whom?
As far as I have read, the idea is that only settlements can declare war and that war must be consensual. I really don't see how that system will work?
One of the main reasons of joining a settlement is to gain a level of protection a company can not achieve on its own. However, if only settlements can have wars, then its member companies are getting the opposite. They will be either dragged into a war that is not of their choosing, or be forced to leave the settlement that they helped to build. The opposite would hold true as well. Maybe a company would want to wage war against another settlement, and yet they are barred from doing so by the other members of their settlement.
Again, it would be difficult to ay out how the politics of a settlement will work, until the war mechanics is revealed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually I could care less about war mechanics. I want to know initial ideas about how those who intend to run settlements plan to treat with their sponsored CCs. Or, in the case that those who intend to run settlements have not yet thought about it, I want to catalyse them to do so. Toward this end, I asked a series of questions I thought were relevant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are always consequences for your actions, in real life and in games. If your company joins a settlement there are usually benefits and demands made of the CC's. A mercenary CC will get the benefit of a stable market and a friendly place to hang your hat, but there will be the demand that they fight for the settlement when needed. A merchant CC will gain the benefit of the protection of the settlement and cheaper prices for settlement allies may be a demand. You can do what you want. But if you don't help out the settlement then the settlement can boot you. If you don't get the benefits from the settlement that you want then you can go find a settlement that will give you those benefits, or start your own. That's what a community is, give and take. Some give more than others, that's life, in game and out of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually I could care less about war mechanics.
You see, the war mechanic is really quite important, especially for mercenary CCs. I'm hoping to develop The UnNamed Company into a Mercenary - Bandit company, contracting our services out to settlements at war. I'm assuming that more traditional Mercenary warrior CCs will be looking to do the same.
Settlements, particularly large ones, would have to have flexibility in allowing CCs to come and go within their membership, because wars will happen and they are the most common cause for groups to come and go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have been involved in developing two of those "kingdoms"...one of which I was arguably the founding member.
If there's any argument about it, you know I'm on your side :) As far as I'm concerned, you were indeed the founding member, and - again, as far as I'm concerned - you'd be welcome back any time :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have been involved in developing two of those "kingdoms"...one of which I was arguably the founding member.If there's any argument about it, you know I'm on your side :) As far as I'm concerned, you were indeed the founding member, and - again, as far as I'm concerned - you'd be welcome back any time :)
*laugh* Thanks Nihimon...no, I do not think anyone was impugning or besmirching my reputation or claims. I was just trying to illustrate that I have no ill-will toward those shooting high initially.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A smart settlement will have a certain level of CCs that are more transitory, like mercenaries and traveling merchants. This would allow them to benefit from the "War" flag, but they may not have the same benefits of a more permanent CC.
Settlements that will do well will see how the wind is blowing and hire or create CCs for that reason. Those CCs should be able to leave these settlements if the conditions aren't to their liking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This darn conscience...
I feel compelled to point out that the actual text of the post I linked above was written by Decius (DeciusBrutus on these forums), as you can plainly see at the bottom even though KitNyx was the one who posted it.
However, KitNyx brought us all together in the first place.
And now, I'm going to stop explaining stuff that no one cares about :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Did they state that the CC would dissolve if they were no longer backed by a settlement? Creation of a CC needs backing by a settlement, but I didn't read anything that said they need them to exists after creation. It is true that I could have missed it, cause I don't read every single post on this message board.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Did they state that the CC would dissolve if they were no longer backed by a settlement? Creation of a CC needs backing by a settlement, but I didn't read anything that said they need them to exists after creation. It is true that I could have missed it, cause I don't read every single post on this message board.
Interesting question, I just assumed it so...Nihimon?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My concern with all this talk of transitory CCs is that the CC does not exist without the settlements sponsorship. So maybe I am misunderstanding how CCs will work but I question the ease and usefulness of travelling.
Ryan Dancey recently backed away from his argument that CCs were like temporary fleets or raid groups, numbering about 20. He had now stated that CCs will be like your traditional MMO guilds, being the first persistent player grouping, and number at least several dozen or more in size.
Back to one of my earlier questions, who needs whom more? CCs don't need a settlement to sponsor them, a settlement needs the CCs to be formed. Initially I would expect settlements to rise and fall. The ones that will survive organizationally will be the ones that are formed from several divisions of the same CC, therefore it will only have one leadership.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan Dancey recently backed away from his argument that CCs were like temporary fleets or raid groups, numbering about 20. He had now stated that CCs will be like your traditional MMO guilds, being the first persistent player grouping, and number at least several dozen or more in size.
Actually, the "several dozen" comment with respect to size goes back to the very first blog that mentioned Chartered Companies, as does comparing them to "traditional Guilds". This isn't really a change. Ryan has stated that 90% of all Guilds (across all games) would easily fit inside that "several dozen" members limitation.
CCs don't need a settlement to sponsor them, a settlement needs the CCs to be formed.
That's not accurate.
Chartered Companies absolutely need a Settlement to sponsor them, although they can get sponsored by an NPC Settlement.
However, it is entirely possible to form a Settlement without ever having a Chartered Company.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I understand it, CC's and settlements are entirely different realms of organization. So..
Settlement A can have as members individuals who are part of CC 1, CC 2 and those who are not part of any CC whatsoever.
CC 1 can have as members individuals who are part of Settlement A, Settlement B and no Settlement at all.
In practice it may end up usualy a good deal more regimented in association then that but theoreticaly that could happen.
Additionaly CC's can be officialy "Sponsored" by a Settlement...and Settlements can open up thier territory and use of facilities to individuals outside of CC affiliation.
So the various interelationships that could occur are rather dizzying and confusing. In the above model, it is theoreticaly possible for members of the same CC to officialy be "At War" with each other because the Settlements they are members of are fighting...it is also theoreticaly possible to be "sponsored" by a Settlement that is hostile to you (because your Settlement is currently at war with that Settlement).... I'm rather curious to see how that will all work out...or whether they will rethink and try to streamline the model.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Ryan Dancey recently backed away from his argument that CCs were like temporary fleets or raid groups, numbering about 20. He had now stated that CCs will be like your traditional MMO guilds, being the first persistent player grouping, and number at least several dozen or more in size.
False.
I said, quite clearly, that Chartered Companies were like Fleets in EVE. Please don't put words in my mouth that I did not say.
The expected sizes of Chartered Companies remains unchanged from when we first discussed them.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
CCs don't need a settlement to sponsor them, a settlement needs the CCs to be formed.
Completely wrong.
All Chartered Companies are sponsored by a Settlement. The sponsoring Settlement may be an NPC Settlement or a PC Settlement.
To form a Settlement you need only a certain number of characters willing to sign on to the Settlement's founding Charter, a secure piece of territory, and a structure that your proto-Settlement can advance to a Settlement structure.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan Dancey recently backed away from his argument that CCs were like temporary fleets or raid groups, numbering about 20. He had now stated that CCs will be like your traditional MMO guilds, being the first persistent player grouping, and number at least several dozen or more in size.False.
I said, quite clearly, that Chartered Companies were like Fleets in EVE. Please don't put words in my mouth that I did not say.
The expected sizes of Chartered Companies remains unchanged from when we first discussed them.
I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to follow what was said. As an example, my thouhgt that a charter company leads to a settlement is based on this:
"A Chartered Company is just a logical code wrapper around a human social structure. The characters in a Chartered Company can do anything characters not in a Chartered Company can do.
A Chartered Company with at least 10 members want to clear a Hex of Forts owned by someone other than themselves, build a Fort they own, agree to a Charter, and advance the Fort to a Settlement, they can. Just like any other group of characters.
My question is, who is advancing the Fort to a Settlement? Is that the Chartered Company that built the fort, or is the settlement that originally chartered the compnay, allowing that company to create a new settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will answer these questions as best I can as a member of the Mercatorum.
- Maintain their own identity and lore (as opposed to being forced to join the central group, even if OOG)
To an extent, yes. They will have to modify that identity as X, member company of the Mercatorum.
- Access to the decision making process of the settlement
This isn't fully decided, but the intent is that noteworthy members of the settlement will be added to the governing body. I wouldn't be surprised of CC membership is a factor (can't let a particular CC become too strong).
- Taxation
I'm not sure what this "question" means. We hope to have taxes fairly light in the Mercatorum. We do not know how and to whom taxes may be applied, so further discourse is fairly fruitless.
- Access to internal contracts.
There has been discussion of limiting contracts to certain CCs as incentive to certain agreements, other than that I imagine our internal contracts would remain largely open to anyone.
- Forced compliance to settlement ROE and "drafts" for defense.
I think that all citizens would be expected to participate in the defense of the settlement to the best of there ability. As was stated earlier (or elsewhere, I don't rightly remember), we aren't going to ask a woodcutter to help fight off the Great Wyrm Red Dragon attacking the capitol.
- Be completely autonomous (other than ROE).
Outside of agreements and contracts, I think that affiliated Companies would be entirely autonomous.
- Selectiveness of sponsorship, ease of application process.
It is likely that we would screen candidates, but I do not know what that process might involve. We will probably do business with Chaotic companies (with a good reputation), but we are not likely to sponsor them.
- Use of settlement facilities.
Our facilities will be open to all, but discounts will be given to citizens and affiliated CCs.
And, will there be:
- Membership and participation strictly in-game versus some out of game component such as an ability or even requirement to register/participate outside the game.
We plan to have a web forum for citizens and affiliated companies to chat outside of game, but I highly doubt it would be a requirement.
- Existence of tiers of CCs
If the engine allowed it, I could envision a system where companies are separated by their level of "buy in" in the settlement.
I hope that gives you an idea of how the Mercatorum intends to operate!
I would like to add the final note that, as only one of 6 Oligarchs and as we are a year or more from EE, I cannot guarantee that these answers are entirely correct or that they will remain the same come release.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan Dancey recently backed away from his argument that CCs were like temporary fleets or raid groups, numbering about 20. He had now stated that CCs will be like your traditional MMO guilds, being the first persistent player grouping, and number at least several dozen or more in size.False.
I said, quite clearly, that Chartered Companies were like Fleets in EVE. Please don't put words in my mouth that I did not say.
The expected sizes of Chartered Companies remains unchanged from when we first discussed them.
I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to follow what was said. As an example, my thouhgt that a charter company leads to a settlement is based on this:
My question is, who is advancing the Fort to a Settlement? Is that the Chartered Company that built the fort, or is the settlement that originally chartered the company, allowing that company to create a new settlement?"A Chartered Company is just a logical code wrapper around a human social structure. The characters in a Chartered Company can do anything characters not in a Chartered Company can do.
A Chartered Company with at least 10 members want to clear a Hex of Forts owned by someone other than themselves, build a Fort they own, agree to a Charter, and advance the Fort to a Settlement, they can. Just like any other group of characters.
I bolded a part that is important and you seemed to have missed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I bolded a part that is important and you seemed to have missed.
"Just like any other group of characters" was not missed, it did not seem to have a bearing on the sequence I was questioning.
My question based on Ryan's quite still remains. But I will reword it, perhaps better:
Does a settlement send out a chartered company to clear a hex, build a fort and then advance that fort to become a new settlement?
Or did I read the statement correctly? A group of players ( at least 10) goes out, clears a hex, builds a fort, agrees on a charter, advances the fort to become a settlement.