Goblin Squad Member
|
It occurs to me it would be consistent and logical that chaotic settlements would have rather different requirements than lawful settlements.
I would propose that Chaotic settlements should have much more relaxed alignment requirements, much as ZenPagan has suggested; that Neutral (on the Order/Chaos spectrum) would have moderately restrictive alignment requirements; and Oppress... I mean Lawful Pris... I mean, settlements would be strict about alignment requirements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your choice is either toward law or not, Aeioun. Good is not an option.So how can you become a good person if you don't want to be evil no more? Helping peasants and some npc faction or something else?
Yep. The automatic shift is for LvC only. If you want to earn good, you can get it through completing PVE quests.
•You gain Good by doing certain PvE actions like quests (probably at a restricted daily rate to keep people from just grinding all the way from Evil to good in a marathon session). You can remain Evil by not doing these actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
supposition
a settlement may be created with as little as one cc
now if you had said kingdoms may have hundreds or thousands yes I would agree eventually. I suspect intialy most settlements will certainly be sub 50 though especially considering according to the landgrab poll the biggest ee kingdom is of memory about 116 members (empyrean order) and no I havent checked the exact number
Yes, with just 10 characters, you can create a settlement charter. If GW allows for multi-boxing, you could even have just 5 players with two characters each.
I have also raised the possibility that a settelment and its supporting charter(s) can be meta gamed in a variety of ways.
For instance: 10 characters that are nothing but placeholders, for the managing positions of the settlement. They do nothing but, maintain desired alginment, and reputation. The remainder of the supporting characters (charters) can be visitor staus, as far as the system knows, but are meta gamed full members of the settlement.
Service of the settlement that they use, are still open to them, and for the same fee that would be used for full members (typically free).
I'm assuming that a settlement can allow access to entry and training, on an individual by individual basis. So even if it barred LE, it could allow a particular LE character to enter.
This way the settlement's alignment and reputation is buffered from the actions of its meta gamed members.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
supposition
a settlement may be created with as little as one cc
now if you had said kingdoms may have hundreds or thousands yes I would agree eventually. I suspect intialy most settlements will certainly be sub 50 though especially considering according to the landgrab poll the biggest ee kingdom is of memory about 116 members (empyrean order) and no I havent checked the exact number
Yes, with just 10 characters, you can create a settlement charter. If GW allows for multi-boxing, you could even have just 5 players with two characters each.
I have also raised the possibility that a settelment and its supporting charter(s) can be meta gamed in a variety of ways.
For instance: 10 characters that are nothing but placeholders, for the managing positions of the settlement. They do nothing but, maintain desired alginment, and reputation. The remainder of the supporting characters (charters) can be visitor staus, as far as the system knows, but are meta gamed full members of the settlement.
Service of the settlement that they use, are still open to them, and for the same fee that would be used for full members (typically free).
I'm assuming that a settlement can allow access to entry and training, on an individual by individual basis. So even if it barred LE, it could allow a particular LE character to enter.
This way the settlement's alignment and reputation is buffered from the actions of its meta gamed members.
Interesting. I take it that your model is based off of one way they do it in EVE? It seems like it could be an exploit but maybe not. Depends on how much time GW demands settlement govt. spend online managing.
One problem though. PCs need to do things to get merit badges. Without merit badges, there is no skill advancement. Without skill advancement wouldn't your settlement fall behind in potential? That is as far as advancing building capabilities and/or DI levels?
Not really how things are done in Eve, A corp can be a single person, Corp roles only grant abilities to do corp things such as configuring the starbase etc. The only real importance of these roles from external influence is when you allow in an infiltrator.
Corporations do not how ever gate in game training to any extent. And having people in the roles grants no real bonus
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One problem though. PCs need to do things to get merit badges. Without merit badges, there is no skill advancement. Without skill advancement wouldn't your settlement fall behind in potential? That is as far as advancing building capabilities and/or DI levels?
First, I doubt it would be an exploit, because nothing says you can't have a character dedicated to just settlement management skills. I would also think that the merit badges associated with management, are gained from management. Should be no oroblem there either.
The issue comes down to the charter company and what is it really. It is either persistent or it is transient, it can not be both. If a charter company is needed to create a settlement, but it is only a potentially temporary player grouping, then what I described above can not be an exploit. Why would a settlement want to tie its alignment and reputation to a transient membership?
The problem is that GW us trying to make the settlement something it is not. The settlement is the housing of a community, it is not the community. The Charter Company is the player organization that comes together and decides to establish a settlement. Settlements do not create charter companies. It is a backwards way of looking at the relationship and it does not make any sense.
It is not a matter of me not understanding GWs vision either. I understand it perfectly well, and it still makes no sense because it is illogical. It creates a chicken vs the egg relationship for no benefit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I doubt it would be an exploit, because nothing says you can't have a character dedicated to just settlement management skills. I would also think that the merit badges associated with management, are gained from management. Should be no oroblem there either.
I don't follow why you would think that management merit badges would come from practice when spell and every other type of merit badge requires a trainer.
It is not a matter of me not understanding GWs vision either. I understand it perfectly well, and it still makes no sense because it is illogical.
It is also normally thought a sign of misunderstanding when a coherent system seems illogical. Your total clarity on something you find completely illogical is, well, nothing short of amazing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I understand it, you need 5 or so players to establish a chartered company. The max number of players in a chartered company is yet unknown. You need two chartered companies to establish a settlement(and maybe a building or two in the same hex). I would say that a settlement can go to war but a chartered company cannot. How does that sound?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I understand it, you need 5 or so players to establish a chartered company. The max number of players in a chartered company is yet unknown. You need two chartered companies to establish a settlement(and maybe a building or two in the same hex). I would say that a settlement can go to war but a chartered company cannot. How does that sound?
Can you point me to where you saw that settlements are created by CCs? The last I recall was that you need ten people to establish a settlement charter, and that charatered companies are irrelevant to this process. From the Put it in Writing blog, it looks as though one person creates the settlement charter, gets ten nonspecified people to sign it, and then establishes a stronghold in a hex and holds it, and they're a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I understand it, you need 5 or so players to establish a chartered company. The max number of players in a chartered company is yet unknown. You need two chartered companies to establish a settlement(and maybe a building or two in the same hex). I would say that a settlement can go to war but a chartered company cannot. How does that sound?Can you point me to where you saw that settlements are created by CCs? The last I recall was that you need ten people to establish a settlement charter, and that charatered companies are irrelevant to this process. From the Put it in Writing blog, it looks as though one person creates the settlement charter, gets ten nonspecified people to sign it, and then establishes a stronghold in a hex and holds it, and they're a settlement.
Ah, your right. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is also normally thought a sign of misunderstanding when a coherent system seems illogical. Your total clarity on something you find completely illogical is, well, nothing short of amazing.
Declaring a system "coherent" is as much an opinion as my calling it "illogical". I can understand an illogical system, and yet still disagree with it. I have spent the last 23 years working in various government departments, all rife with illogical systems, protocols, practices, and yet I can understand them and even understand what they intended to accomplish and why they failed.
I have also spent the last 16 years working with teen aged students, who's thought patterns, practices and beliefs often defy anything an adult might feel is logical, and yet I understand how they make their inferences and draw some of their conclusions. Yet, they still fall short of what the rubric who agree was the "most correct" or "logical" answer.
I understand that GW wants to create the settlement into a player community, and not just a location where the specific player community congregates. I just don't see the logic in feeling they need to define the settlement in such a way. In my opinion there is no logical reason why the progression should not be:
1. Group of player characters come together, and agree they enjoy each other's company, play style, and share similar goals.
2. Group of players create a charter company, that is persistent and represents the traditional guild that we think of in MMO gaming.
3A. This Chartered Company then decides that they will remain unattached to any particular settlement or at most remain with the NPC settlement.
3B. This Chartered Company decides that they wish to begin their own settlement.
In both cases of #3, the Charter Company is the identifier of the group of players. The settlement (NPC or otherwise) is their base of operations or home, whichever you like to think of it as.
I have not read or heard of a valid reason why the settlement becomes the identity of the player group, especially when you consider that according to the Devs, the player group is fluid in their model.
That is what does not make sense to be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would agree that CCs should not need settlement sponsorship. Why did they infer that and at the same time say that CC's members could be from several settlements? I realize that one condition does not preclude the other, but it seems strange.
Also, why should a group of bandits or even mercs need to be tied to any settlement? That is, if they want to be a CC?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would agree that CCs should not need settlement sponsorship. Why did they infer that and at the same time say that CC's members could be from several settlements? I realize that one condition does not preclude the other, but it seems strange.
This is what I referred to as the "chicken and the egg" situation. Which came first, the player group or the player settlement?
It makes more sense that you would have a persistent player group (Charter Company) first, then they decide to build a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Declaring a system "coherent" is as much an opinion as my calling it "illogical".
That depends on which of us, if either, is right. To me it is coherent because if you are going to be chartered someone or something has to provide that charter. A settlement can do so. Where is the illogic of having that same group of people found the settlement, then have the settlement grant them a charter? You are pretending there is illogic where there is instead only a different vision from what you would design. It isn't illogical it is coherent.
I can understand an illogical system
Sorry but that reminds me of a psychiatrist believing he understands insanity. He can describe behavior that suggests it, and he can deliver words about it, but unless he experiences it I very much doubt he can understand it. You worked for the government so you feel it is safe to say their systems were also illogical. More likely you simply failed to factor the context that existed when those procedures were set in place which did then make sense. It isn't an illogical system, you just don't fully understand it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That depends on which of us, if either, is right. To me it is coherent because if you are going to be chartered someone or something has to provide that charter. A settlement can do so. Where is the illogic of having that same group of people found the settlement, then have the settlement grant them a charter? You are pretending there is illogic where there is instead only a different vision from what you would design. It isn't illogical it is coherent.
Not a bad point, all around, especially the bolded. ;) What, though, is the benefit (if any) of being "chartered" and receiving the "sponsorship" of a settlement? Just citizenship and possibly lower training costs?
How do antisocial groups such as bandits ;) etc. form CCs?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To me it is coherent because if you are going to be chartered someone or something has to provide that charter. A settlement can do so. Where is the illogic of having that same group of people found the settlement, then have the settlement grant them a charter? You are pretending there is illogic where there is instead only a different vision from what you would design. It isn't illogical it is coherent.
Usually a guild charter is issued by an NPC in an NPC settlement. Then the now chartered company can strike out into the wilderness, clear their own spot of land, and build their own settlement.
I have not seen any argument as to why this tried and true method needs to be different. What is the advantage for getting rid if the traditional guild concept of persistent player groups?
Why would groups of players, that would typically be transient ( or nomadic for a better term) tie themselves down to a settlement? Why would independent minded charter companies tie themselves to the potential wars of a settlement, they care nothing for?
I'm particularly thinking of bandits, mercenaries, assassins or solitary wandering adventurers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What, though, is the benefit (if any) of being "chartered" and receiving the "sponsorship" of a settlement?
Well, not to be a smartass, but it is how this particular game is to work, from what has been described, which means the alternatives folks come up with likely won't. That would be beneficial, right? But beyond that the settlement sponsoring the mobile company their charter is offering a relationship: favored status (trade, reputation, rest, training, and likely some things we don't yet know about) in exchange for aid in times of trouble, increased trade, income for the training facilities, and probably increased reputation. Plus more we haven't heard about I would imagine.
How do antisocial groups such as bandits ;) etc. form CCs?
Well they are unlikely to really be antisocial, they just have their own values and standards. They will need training facilities too. They will need a fence to pawn off their purloined wares. A settlement can offer the bandits many benefits, and also take advantage of the relationship by pointing out some likely marks. Bandits just need to find a settlement that is under the radar, out of the way... a hole in the wall where the beer is good and the beds kept warm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Usually a guild charter is issued by an NPC in an NPC settlement. Then the now chartered company can strike out into the wilderness, clear their own spot of land, and build their own settlement.
I have not seen any argument as to why this tried and true method needs to be different.
I'll have to consult my pocket oracle, but I suspect it may be because those tried and true methods have also failed badly in some ways, such as keeping their players in the game instead of migrating after a quick roll in the hay.
What is the advantage for getting rid if the traditional guild concept of persistent player groups?
I really don't believe they are getting rid of them. I think they are splicing some new DNA into the old fossil candidate, trying to evolve the species.
Why would groups of players, that would typically be transient ( or nomadic for a better term) tie themselves down to a settlement? Why would independent minded charter companies tie themselves to the potential wars of a settlement, they care nothing for?
Self-filtering? If they are so transient and uncaring would they really benefit the game or transient themselves outta there in a heartbeat? If they do care about the game they may invest themselves in it enough to figure out how it is played, as opposed to playing it the way they played every other game they flirted with and then left at the altar. If they do not care, who needs them?
I'm particularly thinking of bandits, mercenaries, assassins or solitary wandering adventurers.
Not all bandits, mercenaries, assassins, and wandering solitary adventurers are the same, Bluddwolf. It will make sense to some. Hopefully enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being,
I'm not sure if you took my term "transient" to mean, leaving the game or how a meant it, to be transient within the game's setting.
There is a certain freedom that comes with being transient, or not tied down to a "home". I choose the word "home" on purpose as well, including all of its sentimental and emotional attachments that go along with it.
A chaotic neutral character, such as my bandit will be, would have no sense of home. He would have no tie to a location, if his primary motivation is greed. Greed is the kind of vice that is very difficult to contain. One driven by greed, would have the unfilled urge to have more. Nomadically wandering is in many ways the same kind of urge.
Perhaps too philosophical for a base emotion, but that is how I see playing my character. His greed makes him crave to wander and experience more. The more he travels, the more opportunities he will come across to take what he needs to fulfill his greed. Since that can not be done, he continues to travel, steal, travel again... and so on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I got it.
Let's see. A chartered company is tied to a settlement. So all the players in one chartered company represent only one settlement be it a pc or an npc settlement. This means that players can escape war only by aligning themselves with npc settlements. But chartered companies tied to a pc settlement go to war with the settlement.
So this npc settlement sponsorship might just be some kind of informal way to get the game running, but provides people that don't want to tie themselves to any pc settlement a chance to do that. There probably won't be any responsibilities concerning being sponsored by an npc settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there is some fundamental confusion...CCs are not PFO equivalents to guilds, Mr. Dancey has stated this several times. Settlements are defined as a group of people who develop a shared interest in mutual resources...bound geographically. These settlements can agree to sponsor small groups of individuals for whatever reason, and doing so gives those individuals a vested interest in the well-being of the settlement, insuring a give and take relationship. I am predicting that the best and most successful CC/settlement relationships will be based upon common cause, with the CC having goals directly related to the well-being of the settlement, such as the CC being a militia unit or harvesting group. Jut because there is that shared interest, does not mean one must be a citizen or member of the other.
This reinforces the geographical interests GW is trying to build, which reinforces positive social interactions (because you belong to non-transient groups). This is one of GWs stated goals, reducing transitive nature makes PCs more accountable to their respective communities.
However, just because these are the in-game supported social groups, does not mean it is all that can be formed. Anyone is welcome to wander outside of civilization and call themselves whatever they want. They are welcome to have shared out of game resources for group unity...the difference is in not having shared geographical interests.
What I do wish GW would do is allow a "band", which is tied to x number of hideouts. This gives them limited banking (storage in the hideouts) and the other bandit abilities, but they still have to go to some town/settlement for training, even bandit related training. The formation of the "band" is tied to the creation of the initial hideout. The existence of the "band" is tied to the continued existence of x hideouts. Just as destroying a town removes the association to that social group, destroying all a "band's" hideouts destroys the in-game support for the social group. This allows for the formation of more transient social groups, abandoning hideouts for new ones as they wander the map.
It is important to remember that just as the reasons for CC are limited to imagination, so are the reasons for "bands", they need not all be bandits.
As far as I can tell, the closest thing to traditional "guilds/clans" in PFO will be the various NPC factions. I applaud GW's innovation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there is some fundamental confusion...CCs are not PFO equivalents to guilds, Mr. Dancey has stated this several times. Settlements are defined as a group of people who develop a shared interest in mutual resources...bound geographically. These settlements can agree to sponsor small groups of individuals for whatever reason, and doing so gives those individuals a vested interest in the well-being of the settlement, insuring a give and take relationship. I am predicting that the best and most successful CC/settlement relationships will be based upon common cause, with the CC having goals directly related to the well-being of the settlement, such as the CC being a militia unit or harvesting group. Jut because there is that shared interest, does not mean one must be a citizen or member of the other.
This reinforces the geographical interests GW is trying to build, which reinforces positive social interactions (because you belong to non-transient groups). This is one of GWs stated goals, reducing transitive nature makes PCs more accountable to their respective communities.
However, just because these are the in-game supported social groups, does not mean it is all that can be formed. Anyone is welcome to wander outside of civilization and call themselves whatever they want. They are welcome to have shared out of game resources for group unity...the difference is in not having shared geographical interests.
What I do wish GW would do is allow a "band", which is tied to x number of hideouts. This gives them limited banking (storage in the hideouts) and the other bandit abilities, but they still have to go to some town/settlement for training, even bandit related training. The formation of the "band" is tied to the creation of the initial hideout. The existence of the "band" is tied to the continued existence of x hideouts. Just as destroying a town removes the association to that social group, destroying all a "band's" hideouts destroys the in-game support for the social group. This allows for the...
It almost seems necessary for a different take on requirements for a wild (if I may) group that wants a CC style feel. Instead of "Chartered Company" how about "Free Company" or just "Company". It allows for a sense of structure and belonging not there for a wandering band that just "calls itself whatever it wants". They would not have the benefits of a sponsored company provided by association with a settlement, but they would not be obligated to any but themselves either.
A Free Company's members could still go where they can to get training etc.. and not announce that they are bandits or whatever. The sense of structure is the key here.
That does sound "Lawfully" oriented though (as any requirement of structure does). Hmmm...
I still agree with Bluddwolf on this part of his argument.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I completely agree with Kitnyx and Bringslite...
"Free Companions", as mercenaries were referred to in Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian stories, could be tied to less permanent, temporary associations or geographic locations. Perhaps mercenary companies could also have a structure similar to the Bandit's hideout, an "Encampment" might perform much the same way.
Bandits could be geographically tied to their hideouts, but they can operate several or just one if they wish. The trade off is, these hideouts will not give all of the benefits that a true settlement gives, but does allow for them to have that mobility. Also, bandits will not hold more than a monetary connection to their hideout.
Encampments and Hideouts could provide the Mercs and Bandits some training, certainly Chaotic, so that they may initially acquire or hone their skills of ambush, concealment, etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I completely agree with Kitnyx and Bringslite...
"Free Companions", as mercenaries were referred to in Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian stories, could be tied to less permanent, temporary associations or geographic locations. Perhaps mercenary companies could also have a structure similar to the Bandit's hideout, an "Encampment" might perform much the same way.
Bandits could be geographically tied to their hideouts, but they can operate several or just one if they wish. The trade off is, these hideouts will not give all of the benefits that a true settlement gives, but does allow for them to have that mobility. Also, bandits will not hold more than a monetary connection to their hideout.
Encampments and Hideouts could provide the Mercs and Bandits some training, certainly Chaotic, so that they may initially acquire or hone their skills of ambush, concealment, etc...
Hard to find bandit fort? Maybe a small well camouflaged fort/settlement? Just like a hideout you could walk by and without skills, never see it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW hasn't said there will be no 'free' companies, nor have they said they won't build regular guild functions/utilities into the game. They have only said that what they are calling 'chartered companies' gain charter from a settlement.
We have been presuming a few things in the model.
I think what has been revealed to us about chartered companies and their relationship to settlements is really a byproduct of something else they have in mind, a solution to a problem or a potential they foresaw in their vision of the economic/sociopolitical system they want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW hasn't said there will be no 'free' companies, nor have they said they won't build regular guild functions/utilities into the game. They have only said that what they are calling 'chartered companies' gain charter from a settlement.
We have been presuming a few things in the model.
I think what has been revealed to us about chartered companies and their relationship to settlements is really a byproduct of something else they have in mind, a solution to a problem or a potential they foresaw in their vision of the economic/sociopolitical system they want.
I totally agree with you here...back when CCs were originally announced I thought I understood what they were striving for and I kept trying to explain my understanding to others...and I kept comparing CCs to guilds. Mr. Chancy repeatedly corrected me that CCs are not guilds, continuing to explain that there is no "traditional guild" structure in PFO.
But...as has been seen elsewhere I can miss changes and my understanding at times is...a bit archaic. This might have changed too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
87 new posts...
Dear Mother of God these Alignment topics do go on, don't they?
The most amusing part to me is that the thread's original question was answered in post #9 - just about everything else has been off-topic ;)
Just to throw a bit of oil on the fire (don't worry, it's only baby oil ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
87 new posts...
Dear Mother of God these Alignment topics do go on, don't they?
The most amusing part to me is that the thread's original question was answered in post #9 - just about everything else has been off-topic ;)
I think it is fair to say that alignment systems are controversial in RPGs, and even more so in an MMORPG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it is fair to say that alignment systems are controversial in RPGs, and even more so in an MMORPG.87 new posts...
Dear Mother of God these Alignment topics do go on, don't they?
The most amusing part to me is that the thread's original question was answered in post #9 - just about everything else has been off-topic ;)
Yes Sir. Sure seems that way. Seems like it may be top 3 if not the King of controversy. I think it may be because, as you have pointed out, it has not worked well (or even been used) in most MMOs with such an "in-you-face" kind of implementation.
Yet, it has never been tried in exactly the way that GW is doing it. They actually seem to be doing things in such a flexible way that, I feel, it will be tweaked if it seems to not deliver the results that GW is looking for.
I will give it a chance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not down with paladins walking the same streets as evil clerics. Just doesn't make sense.
Just as a random aside, I don't see any problem with paladins and evil clerics walking the same streets, unless the paladins make a habit of Detecting Evil on everyone they see. The clerics won't be worshipping openly in this scenario, of course, but even if they did get Detected by the Pallys, they could always claim that they were working themselves on the path to redemption. Sarenrae holy symbols would be at a premium...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just as a random aside, I don't see any problem with paladins and evil clerics walking the same streets, unless the paladins make a habit of Detecting Evil on everyone they see. The clerics won't be worshipping openly in this scenario, of course, but even if they did get Detected by the Pallys, they could always claim that they were working themselves on the path to redemption. Sarenrae holy symbols would be at a premium...
I am not down with paladins walking the same streets as evil clerics. Just doesn't make sense.
Well, "paladins walking the same streets as evil clerics" is really meant to be more of.... an example from which imaginative analogous associations could be derived.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!
The above could be the result.
=P