Goblin Squad Member
|
To be more specific, settlements require occasional upkeep. A guild that falls apart will not be able to maintain such upkeep. This will cause settlement indexes to fall, making the settlement ever more vulnerable to attack, and I imagine disappearing altogether if upkeep lapses too far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Further, if that fallen/falling settlement has industrious neighbors you'll likely see them make a play to takeover some or all of the previous settlement's lands. There may come a time when land is scarce and prime spots with weak/loose "guilds" holding it will be watched like a hawk. Some hawks will wait until it's dead (so they are more buzzards) while others will pick a good time to invade and take an easy kill.
Course, that's all aggressive and such. You could also see some groups, knowing their time is coming, make diplomatic deals and fold into larger, more stable empires.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A settlement might be run by a single CC or several CCs or even several people that are not in CCs. Guild = CC or Chartered Company.
Any settlement worth anything will have at least a couple CCs in it or at least a population of players. It is not clear how a settlement will run, yet, if It's leaders abandon It. Will It run down or can someone else step in? Unknown, as of yet.
So, if leadership dissolves, chaos might just ensue! Yippie! Tons of fun. Weak settlements (those with unskilled leaders) will be on the radar of stronger aggressive ones.
There is some info in the Blog and some new stuff you can listen too on Gobbocast episode #9.
I once became a Guild Master and owner in GW1 because everyone else left the guild.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm, I can't help but think that unless the system is designed for it, it sounds like eventually you'd have some major players (I mean countries) while smaller players are either squashed immediately, or simply never get the chance to form. I think if they include the ability for certain parts of countries to revolt, we'd get the awesome chance to see other nations helping out the fledgling country in that decision so as to harm the larger nation from which it divided from (it would also offer the best chance to avoid seeing an end world where there's only a few major players while there being absolutely no one else).
That's 100% possible. For all we know, a kingdom is just a group of settlements that have formed an "alliance". If one of those settlements decides the alliance is not in its best interest anymore, could they not contact an "enemy kingdom" and ask for help so they could separate. Or even ask more small settlements to rise up against the kingdom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm, I can't help but think that unless the system is designed for it, it sounds like eventually you'd have some major players (I mean countries) while smaller players are either squashed immediately, or simply never get the chance to form. I think if they include the ability for certain parts of countries to revolt, we'd get the awesome chance to see other nations helping out the fledgling country in that decision so as to harm the larger nation from which it divided from (it would also offer the best chance to avoid seeing an end world where there's only a few major players while there being absolutely no one else).
I can't really see a problem with that though.
Large kingdoms with well equipped armies and access to large pools of funds and mercenary groups should be able to squash some immigrant with no skills or gear (and his company of buddies). This is why said immigrant will have to find friends and allies, or get some skill or talent that is rare so people want to be friends/ally with them. Over the course of time (with appropriate political machinations), the poor immigrant lad could become a feared leader of a rebel faction, a ridiculously rich merchant in charge of a cartel or a spy situated deep in the heart of the aforementioned kingdom.
Far better to have a rich and wonderful journey like this that takes time and patience, than have the ability to reach level 80 in a week and single-handedly be able to kill all the leaders of the kingdom riding your feared war ostrich and be crowned imperial overlord Leetdood without ever talking to another character/player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm, I can't help but think that unless the system is designed for it, it sounds like eventually you'd have some major players (I mean countries) while smaller players are either squashed immediately, or simply never get the chance to form. I think if they include the ability for certain parts of countries to revolt, we'd get the awesome chance to see other nations helping out the fledgling country in that decision so as to harm the larger nation from which it divided from (it would also offer the best chance to avoid seeing an end world where there's only a few major players while there being absolutely no one else).
You will have some major players. Just as in EVE Online. That said, we know some current projected numbers for eg: Number of hexes, number of settlement eligible hexes, monster hexes. We know rough numbers for settlement size (possibly smaller in the beginning but gradually escalating) and we know that GW intend for a steady growth for the first 2 years and secondly a population to area ie population density that is balanced between civilized hexes vs wild hexes.
Added to this is the complex interaction of alignments and alliances and the sub-components of player-groups ie CC's and out of game guilds that all make up various settlements, which will variously choose different laws, different political structures and different in-game goals. The ideal I'm hoping to see from Alignment is different parts of the map ranging from peaceful high security towards warzone zero security and anything in-between. Generally there might well be a cluster in one seciton of the map that achieve high security and recruits players looking for that experience. Similarly CE's from eg Darkfall might love to carve out a lawless, always flagged criminal area where the only rule is: Kill or be killed.
So there's a wide range of potential factors to how the map develops. I think firstly given the above, the intial LAND RUSH!! will result primarily in growth and there will be sufficient space for a wide range of settlements to co-exist. But as they get bigger and as some become more competitive then we'll start to see a need for alliances and a need for strong pvp presence. Some settlements might then decide to combine their strengths for common protection or to start raising a war chest for their Eastern Front offensive...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sandbox MMO communities are really a microcosm of real world society, in most ways.
You will have settlements that start small, and forever remain small.
You will have settlements that rise quickly, hit the pinnacle, and then suddenly collapse and disappear completely.
You will have others that grow, slow and steady, but remain mediocre.
Still others that grow from small to largest and dominate for seemingly forever.
Same holds true for Charter Companies (guilds). I have played within some guilds that lasted for many, many years and we were not in many MMOs at all. We were more of a forum guild that spanned over 7 years and made our presence felt in many games and forums (both single player and MMOs). I have the pleasure of still having some of those friends with me in the UnNamed Company, bring our total time in games to 11 years.
Individual players will come and go. Guilds will form and collapse. Settlements / kingdoms will rise and fall.
Friends will find a way to play with each other, or at least keep in touch, in spite of whatever game circumstances take place.
There will be many failed guilds in PfO, many more than normally encountered. Why do I say this? Simple a guild/kin/chartered company whatever it is called is much much more important to your character in a sandbox game than it is in a theme park.
Consequently running an organisation well takes a lot more planning and coordination to get a decent organisation that serves the needs of its members rather than just be a name floating over your head as to many theme park guilds are
Failure and decay will cause consumption.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just want to throw in my 2 pence, neither CCs nor Settlements are guilds. They are not intended to be or behave like guilds in other MMOs. They are unique structures; incoming social groups will need to adapt. Those who do not, will probably not succeed.
I agree settlements are not guilds, they are alliances.
CCs on the other hand are guilds in the traditional sense. This is in spite of what GW might think or wish for.
There is not a single CC on these message boards that are not conducting themselves like anything else but a guild. Crowdforgers such as ourselves will be asking for CC tools that closely mirror traditional guild tools. It has been alluded to that settlements will have some of those tools as well.
In the end, I believe that either CCs or settlements will be guilds. It will be GW that will need to adapt to this, not incoming social groups adapting to the absence of a traditional guild.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@cmastah: This blog explains how running a settlement will work (it's a real beauty!):
The most basic formal organization is the chartered company, which we detailed in LFG! (Looking for Group!).
Chartered companies have very basic charters. Forming a chartered company is a multi-step process that begins with the creation of a simple charter that triggers a vote by the members of an ad hoc party. The party leader initiates the voting process, and is responsible for setting up the charter. The charter sets forth the name the company will use, and its mission statement; these will become public information if the party is successful at forming a chartered company.
All Politics Are Local Politics
Player-run settlements are the centerpiece of the Pathfinder Online design; they also begin with a charter.
A character proposing a settlement must define several aspects of the settlement in its charter:
[Cont'd...]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just want to throw in my 2 pence, neither CCs nor Settlements are guilds. They are not intended to be or behave like guilds in other MMOs. They are unique structures; incoming social groups will need to adapt. Those who do not, will probably not succeed.I agree settlements are not guilds, they are alliances.
CCs on the other hand are guilds in the traditional sense. This is in spite of what GW might think or wish for.
There is not a single CC on these message boards that are not conducting themselves like anything else but a guild. Crowdforgers such as ourselves will be asking for CC tools that closely mirror traditional guild tools. It has been alluded to that settlements will have some of those tools as well.
In the end, I believe that either CCs or settlements will be guilds. It will be GW that will need to adapt to this, not incoming social groups adapting to the absence of a traditional guild.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will be many failed guilds in PfO, many more than normally encountered. Why do I say this? Simple a guild/kin/chartered company whatever it is called is much much more important to your character in a sandbox game than it is in a theme park.
Consequently running an organisation well takes a lot more planning and coordination to get a decent organisation that serves the needs of its members rather than just be a name floating over your head as to many theme park guilds are
Very good points Zen. This blog is interesting discussing this topic in EQ2: How a guild dies
I don't think I can point to any one thing that went wrong. The collapse of the guild felt like a death by a thousand cuts, starting with paper cuts then graduating to slashes from blades.
I think that the biggest problem was the weakening of the community. As I said, the initial members were very enthusiastic about the concept of the guild, and the guild leader was very strict in enforcing the rules. Because we had a shared experience and adversity, it became easier for us to stick together. But, as some members feared not having enough people helping out, they invited more people and weakened the rules. This caused more problems as it alienated the original members of the guild, causing them to leave and abandon the guild and leading to a feedback loop.
Without that community, the rules made less sense to enforce, and thus the guild degenerated until the guild was nothing special.
What could have been done? I think the best thing would have been to stick with the original rules. Keep the original purpose as much as possible rather than compromising to build the guild. I would have preferred to see the original promise thrive or fail on its own merits would have been better than lamenting about "what could have been...."
It's a shame, because I do enjoy EQ2 as a game, but I lost my excuse to spend more time in it.
What do you think? Have you been part of a guild that fell apart? What do you think caused the problems? What could have been done to prevent it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My first question whenever I'm invited to a guild is, "What is your guild premise?" Given how little I need in material items to play my game in an MMO, and that I network fairly well without guild affiliation, I don't usually "need" a guild for the reasons most players seek out guild membership (extra storage, shared goods, help with dungeons, a group to raid/PvP with, etc.). What I look for in a guild is a really interesting concept...a theme, if you will...something that captures my interest, will be an inspiring min-environment to better flesh out my character's evolving story and within which I can create stories, plots, player-made quests, etc. Guilds with a unique sense of identity, especially if they play a welcomed role in the community as a whole...those are the guilds I would seek if I were looking for a place to hang my hat.
Guilds that are simply a cluster of players just looking for guild perks, a free handout, extra bodies to round out a party...those are a dime a dozen, and their membership waxes and wanes with the often fickle nature of their membership. These are guilds that people often join with the mindset of "what can your guild do for me?" rather than guilds that inspire its members to ask "what can I do for the guild?"
Given how much more CCs will have at stake in the form of settlements (real, persistent, investments of time and money), I'm hoping PFO's version of guilds will be entered into with more thought, commitment, and an eye for the long haul...all of which, hopefully, will add to their individuality and flavor. One can hope. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
Of course they won't. I simply used the PFO equivalent of what other games call guilds. I've "heard" (not read anywhere) that GW was backing off even further on the CC membership numbers - allowing more than the previously stated 20. If someone can back that statement up with the source, I think many current groups would love to read it.
@CMastah
Some guilds will organise at the settlement level whereby the guild is made up of several CC's and individual settlement members. You will often find these sort of guild will have specialised CC's one of which will probably be PVP if not more, however they will often also have specialised CC's dealing with Pve or crafting or trade.
You should be able to find either a settlement or CC that will suit you if you wish for one feel free to check out the Pax Aeturnum recruitment thread or Pax gaming for an example of one organising at the settlement level.
Alternatively Nihimon has a helpful links section which includes all of the recruitment thread links if Pax is no good to you
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who take a more organic perspective, CCs will probably be those who play together often, no matter the function of each individual member. They will probably want to have their own (semi-)independent identity and story.
Creating specialized CCs like some pre-planned social groups are proposing is a matter of trying to centralize function and security. I do not think it is the purpose or goal of CCs, but we will see how well it works out.
Personally, I would prefer GW just provide a robust system for custom ranking structures, substructures, inventory control, and ranks within each specified social entity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
cmastah,
I fully agree with Pagan. Though some other games have seen very large (100+ member) guilds, settlements are going to provide a whole new way to organize people in an MMO.
Especially if GW increases it's cap on CC membership numbers (20 keeps kicking around), you will likely see one or more large CC's at the heart of a settlement, with their members holding key settlement management positions. As Pagan points out, some of their members will likely fill the roles of merchants, crafters, etc., and have nothing to do with PvP unless the settlement is attacked. You will also likely find smaller CC's aligning with existing settlements and contracting for various services/protections/etc., but not actually having voting rights or citizenship in the settlement. You will even likely see individual guests and residents that aren't technically members of the settlement.
So the idea that you have to join a CC or even a settlement to be successful is not a must, though it may make life easier. However, if you plan to be a solo player, I would suggest that you at least foster a good working relationship with a CC or two and make friends with at least one settlement out in the wilder areas where NPC towns are too far away to serve as your base.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hobs, CCs being capped at 20 was not actually said. It was initially said somewhere a round 20. Then Ryan Dancey said that it was not set in stone, and that CCs would likely have several dozen.
If it turns out that we can have about 50 - 60 members in a CC, I'd be fine with that. If it is less than 30, then I may consider my plans for a meta gamed alliance if non chartered companies. We will do our best to live outside of the "machine", as the Brethren if the Wild Lands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If two dozen is the limit, I hope there will be an easy way for CC's from the same settlement to denote their common allegiance. Personally, it wouldn't bother me if our characters had nothing above their heads but clouds and blue sky, but I know many people will want the PFO equivalent of guild tags visible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
one can belong to a CC and/or a Settlement/Kingdom, I see no reason why they would want to prevent those who have structures in common to display that.
If you mean sponsorship, I see no reason two CCs sponsored by the same Settlement need be commonly aligned. Imagine a Settlement that sponsors mercenary CCs, why would those CC want to have common allegiance with a CC they might be fighting (in battles that do not influence their sponsor Settlement).
@kitnyx
the rules of what sponsored companies may or may not do will be in the hands of settlements. Want sponsorship from a settlement you will have to agree to follow their rules which may or may not include who you may contract with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They would either all need to be members of a Pax Settlement or denote it through enforcing a rule that puts "Pax" in each CCs name, or some such thing.
As a better solution, I hope they allow banners, crests, and tabards/tunics...and allow each guild to create their own. Then make each a real item in the world (unlike WoW which changes the crest based upon ones allegiances). If I can get hold of a Pax tabard, I should be able to wear a Pax tabard...whether I am Pax or not.
A pax tabard is easy to create
I believe the top left quarter of our crest is a beer stain drippant while the bottom right corner is characterised by 2 bacon grease stains in the shape of a hand, the two other quarters being an unlaundered in a while greyish hue
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A pax tabard is easy to create
I believe the top left quarter of our crest is a beer stain drippant while the bottom right corner is characterised by 2 bacon grease stains in the shape of a hand, the two other quarters being an unlaundered in a while greyish hue
I do sincerely hope you guys own an in-game Tavern to hang that in.