Goblin Squad Member
|
Last night (Friday, 5/10) several of us had a very productive chat on TS. One topic I think worth sharing was the following:
What should happen to an individual or CC's goods stored in a settlement if that settlement's leadership decides to banish that individual/CC from the settlement?
The conversation included how those individuals might be notified, should there be a grace period, should shared storage function more like a contract, etc. Thought I'd toss it up here and get the community's feedback.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that if an individual or CC should get notice that they are in the process of being removed from the settlement.
That notification and process can not begin until the individual or Charter has been online (obviously) and has acknowledged the receipt of the notification. That way, someone on vacation would not return to find their stuff gone.
There are a few options that there could be as mechanics:
1. When you put stuff in the settlement bank that is individualized, it is yours and you will be provided access to it for a limited time, after notification has been acknowledged.
1b. It is your private bank account in settlement, but you can have the contents of it shipped to another bank of your choice. This caravan would be created just outside the gates, and you can take control of it there.
2. Settlement Community Banks, you do not have a guarantee to get those items back. You will get the same notification of the pending removal from the settlement, and this will give you opportunity to contact leadership to request the return of your contributions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quite a dilemma and possible danger for both the CC and the settlement itself that you pose there Mr. Hobs.
-I agree (with Bluddwolf) that notification to individual CC members and a time limit would have to be issued at their next log in. In the case that the member is far from the settlement the notice would have to be long enough for them to get there and organize transport. Some fair amount of time.
-On the other hand, if settlement PC population is small, you have a real danger with a notice. A CC could organize a mass log in, with OOG channels, and pose a real danger to the settlement. If they mass log on during an open PVP window and "inside" the settlement already. That could just be a risk that the settlement has to take but it is a serious danger none-the-less. Perhaps mitigated by the CC's desire to get away with their goods, perhaps not of concern to them if they are angry enough to cause mischief. Perhaps there would be no real danger if there are strict and detailed rules for declaring war.
Perhaps community banks should be considered an investment and donation and refundable at the settlement's discretion. Just as Bluddwolf suggests. That is fair.
Some possible answers:
Disenfranchisement and eviction disables a CC's ability for PVP during the "notice to vacate timer".
A special storage building, outside the walls, for booted CCs. Also with a timer but longer as a curtesy(sp?).
A short notice for the actual PC and a type of "escrow" contract for the PC goods, redeemable only at guards outside the gates.
Of course in the issue of the property, there may be a third concern besides personal and community banks. The CC may have a community bank.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Like I said in the chat last night. I really think most of this is overcomplicating thing. I am strongly against a notice window when removing someone (or a CC) from the settlement. That's just an invitation for them to cause all sorts of problems and headaches for the settlement. I think if they are actually in the settlement when banished, or their first login after banishment is in the settlement, then sure, give them time to exit before flagging them trespassers. You don't give somebody two weeks notice before firing them.
As far as how to handle the storage, I think it's an option that should be in place by the storage structure. Option A, your goods continue to be in storage, inaccessible to anyone (since you can't get into the settlement) or option B, the goods revert to the owner of the storage structure possibly after some adjustable time window. You'd know which type it was before depositing your goods, so there's no "I was never told" element to it. And both have advantages.
With A, your goods are sitting there safe if you manage to win your way back into the settlement. With B, yes, the owner could keep your stuff, or you could arrange with them to have it delivered somewhere else. Especially if the owner of the structure is not the settlement itself or a member of the ruling body (whatever it may be) who decided to banish you.
The view I take is one that harks back to the risk / reward base. There should be an advantage to using storage in player settlements such as extra storage is available, the risk of using storage in player settlements is you may end up losing your stuff.
Up to now this has been talked about as if all reasons are the same. Personally I would say there are three slightly different scenario's in play to consider
1) The settlement is taken over/destroyed in a war
2) A change in law precludes the player
3) An SCC parts company with the settlement
my answers as to what should happen to the above are
1) No if's or buts the stored items are lost, and may be included in the victorious sides loot
2) A player being excluded by a law change (ie it is not a deliberate exclusion of that player in particular) should get the notification on next log on and an hours grace period in which they get a pass to enter and retrieve their stuff.
3) An SCC parts company with the settlement. I think personally this should be down completely to negotiation between the SCC and the settlement. The settlement may choose to confiscate or release. Settlements that routinely confiscate will suffer from the bad word of mouth, however if the reason for the divorce is the behaviour of the SCC then it could be used as a way of reparation on the part of the settlement
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dario
It may seem to be overcomplicating but it could be a real issue to an individual crafter, gatherer, refiner, merchant, wealthy CC, wealthy PC, etc...
A CC causing trouble could be as situational as a CC getting evicted. Could be just a "tough luck" situation, I suppose. Seems like a discouragement from joining a settlement though when added to the risk of losing goods in time of war also.
Some guarantee of safe storage or at least as safe as possible seems important. NPC settlement storage is a possibility but I know that they want us to drift from dependence on NPC organizations and toward PC interaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most settlements are likely to be reasonable Bringslite and only confiscate in exceptional circumstances. If they do it routinely as you say they will have trouble attracting SCC's and if the SCC's they already have see another having there junk confiscated unfairly then they will soon leave.
Again risk reward comes into play the Settlement takes the risk of chartering your company, just unsponsoring you is not much of a penalty so it is fair that they have another sanction that they can apply as a way of dissuading your company from doing anything to damage their interests to much.
Meta reputation in this game will be hugely important. Sucessful settlements will be those that have a good reputation for how they treat their sponsored companies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed that meta rep will be important for settlement/kingdoms, especially in the early game. As the game grows and reaches open enrollment, there may be a sort of diluted in-game knowledge of "stinker" settlement and CC meta reps though.
Perhaps there will be a player site that tracks such things. Sort of like a Better Business Bureau of some sort. New players and CCs (which I believe will explode in numbers) will be responsible to do their own research on who to join.
The rule of Caveat Emptor applies, A good CC leader does his homework before drinking the settlement kool aid
@Decius
To be kicked out of a settlement do you agree that a CC has done something to make the settlement wish to exclude them?
If so what are the consequences they are suffering for their action?
My point is really this is the only sanction which a settlement has to discourage sponsored companies from misconduct which affects the settlement.
Removal from the settlement sponsorship is not really something I see as being particularly onerous before you argue that it is the punishment.
@Decius
The revocation of the sponsorship you mean, it has since been stated this just means they need to go find another settlement. This you believe is the worst thing that could happen to them?
When your settlement sponsors a company the reputation of your settlement is in that companies hands and any ill will they generate will reflect on your settlement. That is how a company affects your settlement
Issues of being banned from territories where you hold goods in storage seem to hinge on locality of transactions, which PFO largely seems to prioritize, i.e. you actually have to be in a location to transact goods. That is a good dynamic IMHO, but especially this case seems like having SOME other options would be useful... If you can sell access to a storage unit you own from ANY location, then the 'banned from your own storage unit' problem has a route to be reasonably resolved.
...But that leads to goods not needing to ever be transported except when they are to actually be used (crafted/consumed/equipped/etc) and any 'speculative'/financial transactions can be done ANYWHERE in the world. That goods only really need to be transported when they are to physically be exploited doesn't seem that bad to me, but for the latter issue a reasonable compromise could be that transactions of ownership over storage units/bank accounts can only be done in specific locations, such as the 3 major NPC Settlements who would have the 'banking infrastructure' to arrange for non-local transfers of ownership in banks/storage units in several settlements. Perhaps even restrict things so that you need to go to the NPC Settlement associated with the Guard faction that applies to the Settlement whose Storage Unit you want to trade? It would also be reasonable to be able to arrange such non-local transactions within a Nation, either from a chosen 'capitol' or freely between all the Settlements (but not any random location in the Wilderness Hexes, etc). Settlements/Nations of sufficient Civilization DI could also establish 'Banking Treaties' to allow for such between themselves. Any such transactions could also have a special 'fee', which would make this sort of transfer less economically efficient than direct trades, thus maintaining the importance of direct trades.
Given that,
You should be able to sell/give away 'limited access' keys for specific items that are actually in the storage unit.
To prevent fraud, you can't make limited access keys for items which don't exist in the storage unit,
and such limited access keys would be given EXCLUSIVE access rights to the items so that
other players with access to the storage unit can't withdraw the items before the person with limited access key can.
A holder of a limited access key could even issue a new one applicable for a sub-set of the already limited access.
Such 'limited' keys could even be freely traded and indefinitely held, although that runs into certain
issues if the storage units are run (by the settlement) as having certain weekly/etc fees,
perhaps the fee structure would better function as a one-time fee when depositing (and/or withdrawing) items, on a per-item basis?
The 'financial fee' for transacting ownership/access of storage unit-held goods could then be equivalent to the 'deposit/withdrawal' fee, and settlements would be making the same money from these 'paper' changes of ownership as they would for owners withdrawing items to sell.
...Then you've either sold the contents to a new owner and that's that, or if you want the goods themselves,
then you structure a contract for delivery of "all the goods in X account" (or per the limited access key).
If there's a large amount where transporting the whole lot is a serious undertaking, then payment for delivery should probably be more granular (and structuring the whole contract via multiple limited access keys is probably preferable).
I don't really see why there should be an automatic 'grace period' before being ejected from a settlement/put on their 'no entry' list (although having an OPTION for a grace period is no problem, but that doesn't need a game mechanic, it can just be saying 'you will be on our ban list starting tomorrow'). The above options for dealing with the contents of a storage unit should be able to be contracted remotely, so I don't see any over-riding concern for enabling your continuing presence when the settlement no longer wants that, and there's plenty of situations where a settlement would want somebody to immediately leave and/or be dealt with as a criminal trespasser.
The only think akin to a 'grace period' I see as something that should automatically apply is pertaining to the alignment/reputation repurcussions of gaining the criminal flag for trespassing. If you are put on the 'no entry' list of a settlement, you become a trespasser when on their territory, but if you were already on the territory when they change your status to that you should probably not suffer the alignment/reputation consequences (since you didn't take any action yourself), although PCs and NPC Guards can and will react as normal to a 'Trespasser', i.e. you do have that flag. Or along with that, if you are put on the Trespasser list while already on their territory, NPC Guards will appear to escort you off the territory... If you comply and leave, you aren't attacked by them.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Decius
The revocation of the sponsorship you mean, it has since been stated this just means they need to go find another settlement. This you believe is the worst thing that could happen to them?When your settlement sponsors a company the reputation of your settlement is in that companies hands and any ill will they generate will reflect on your settlement. That is how a company affects your settlement
If it's easy to find another settlement to sponsor you, that's because there's little harm that you are expected to offer. It can't be both ways.
How interesting - this Chartered Company stuff is something that I had really never thought would come up. Its really hard to take for granted information that we have that isnt yet available in the wild.
I dont want to drop any spoilers ahead of upcoming blog posts and such so I cant address the CC questions in quite as much detail as I'd like, but let me say this :
Chartered Companies are companies in their own right. Their settlement allegiance is a choice they (and the settlement) make together. Therefore, if their settlement collapses, kicks them out, or no longer meets their needs, their company is not disbanded - they simply break their charter and wander off elsewhere.
Sponsorship has various (mostly social/roleplay/defensive) benefits. There, as some will be pleased to hear, very few MECHANICAL features to influence these relationships.
The harm a company can do is very real and largely bears on the metagame aspect
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ideally that means a Chartered Company can take their items with them.
In a situation where they cannot, holding onto their goods could be a risky proposition. Even if an exiled/banished Charter cannot declare war on you, there's nothing stopping them from talking to your rivals, organising hits on your people and the rival Charter decides now is the time to hammer your borders as hard as they can to drive down your Development Indexes.
That means people will be encouraged to be polite in such situations. Booting somebody out to lay claim to their hard-earned stockpiles will see you getting assassinated left, right and center, and the Settlement's Development Indexes will suffer in response.
Which is why I said that most settlements would use the ability to consfiscate items from a banished company sparingly. Personally I still think it is a reasonable power for settlements to have to prevent chartered companies they sponsor from running amok and ruining their reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why I said that most settlements would use the ability to consfiscate items from a banished company sparingly. Personally I still think it is a reasonable power for settlements to have to prevent chartered companies they sponsor from running amok and ruining their reputation.
I can see the logic in that ZenPagan. My concern would be "personal" storage separate from the CC's. Not everyone in the offensive CC may be as active and/or responsible for the CC's behavior as warrants confiscation. I suppose that if the settlement had control, as you stated, this could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
In any case, both parties would stand to lose in general perception for acting badly in the situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And if the Settlements abuse their powers and start banning Chartered Companies to lay claim to their storehouses, sooner or later the CC's are going to put their heads together, unite under a common banner and declare War against the Settlement.
"We decided we're big enough now we don't need a CC defending us."
"Fine, you're getting a little bit too bossy anyways..."
"Oh, and we're claiming your warehouse and goods."
"WHY?"
"Because we can. Now, get off our land."
Several weeks of heavy raiding later, the Settlement Group is bleeding out financially from no trade coming in or out, and then they recieve a declaration of War from the exiled CC group. Refusing to sign it, the Settlement Group is forced to endure several more weeks of punishing raids that have set them back months of work before they arrange a meeting with the CC group they exiled in neutral territory.
"Attacking us without our signing your declaration of war will leave you with evil and chaotic alignments!"
"Well, we'll just have to live with that. How long will it take you to rebuild your Settlement after we raze it to the ground, salt your fields, poison your wells and burn all the resources we can lay our hands on?"
"....Here's your stuff. Take it and get out."
Just because you might be able to play 'Evil Landlord' and confiscate the Chartered Company/Guild's assets doesn't mean it's a wise plan. A small fee for the trouble might not be outside the bounds of understanding, especially if the CC has failed in their duties, but most CCs will have a standing army of some kind, and the last thing you want is an bitter enemy with sympathetic ties to your own people and intimate knowledge of your defenses.
@Halforc
Indeed my point exactly any settlement routinely using this would soon find themselves in trouble. I would see most well run settlements only using this when they have to recoup losses that they have incurred due to the actions of an SCC.
At pax for instance we make very clear what we consider unbecoming conduct for someone sponsored under our banners before we get to the point of sponsoring that company and I am sure if LordJessiah happens to read this he will testify accordingly. Most well run settlements will also have codes that they expect companies they charter to adhere to as well. Giving your sponsorship to a company, or joining a settlement as a sponsored company should be well thought out by both sides.
I think one good idea is to make it so that a single person can't randomly decide to do that. I mean it may suck to have an annoying exploiter and troll who you can't get rid of by what amounts to admin status, but if it had councils and stuff even if there was a leader it could add some political intrigue to it.
Maybe have a grace period for the council to decide, where the player is warned it's being deliberated on, then after the grace period is up codify the decision they make?
:D That would also add an element of suspense and give the potentially banished player time to plead and persuade the Council to change votes or whatever.