Goblin Squad Member
|
Just for the record, I'm kind if a one toon, one company, one settlement and one faction kind of player.What does Qiang Tian Zsu think of that?
I just realized I did not adequately answer this question, out of character.
As a person who wears many hats, and varying responsibilities, I have learned how to compartmentalize to the point I deserve a PHD in it. I bring the same ability to playing multiple characters, with different play styles and personalities.
Once in game if you did not know Qiang and Bluddwolf were played by the same person, you would be stunned in disbelief. That at least is my goal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a faction system provides any bonus, any edge that allows them to win, they will certainly utilize it to its fullest, without any care for the extra trappings it provides which many of us may value.
Somewhat balancing that, if 'they' maximize the advantage of a faction, then other non-them members of that faction should be reasonably safe from them. If I am of an opposing faction, then areas controlled by my faction will afford something of a sanctuary beyond NPC and Player settlements.
If they don't give a rip about the lore they will fit right into the lore themselves, because that is how many people really are, and how people probably were in the River Kingdoms.
It isn't a fault with the faction systems at all. It is to be expected. It should be factored and planned for.
It is no argument at all against factions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they don't give a rip about the lore they will fit right into the lore themselves, because that is how many people really are, and how people probably were in the River Kingdoms.
I like that framing; lore being secondary to life. Lore is what wise men safe in their towers talk about. The advantages of belonging to a group or faction and having help or allies in hard times - that's the reality of life on the ground.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being,
You seemed to have focused on the second part of that quoted text rather than the first portion, which is where my concern for factions was seated.
You're right - the fact that a majority of players likely won't care in the slightest about the lore of factions isn't an argument to toss out that portion of factions. But nowhere in my post do I suggest that the lore should be tossed out in the first place. I do suggest that players could likely create their own that is every bit as meaningful, if not more so, but I didn't suggest that the existing Pathfinder faction lore should be removed. Instead, I attempted to point out a possible consequence of the faction system if membership in a particular faction affords any more meaningful bonus, say...in PvP, than any other faction.
I'm not sure how that scenario would be balancing unless GW gives the exact same bonuses to any opposing faction, which would seem to negate the point of the bonus in the first place. If one faction does seem to be the best "for the win", I would question how much sanctuary your opposing faction is going to be able to afford you if the earned bonuses gave "them" a meaningful advantage. That was the question I was raising.
Again, I simply raise questions and state concerns. I'm not trying to sway the crowd or force my opinion or deny you something you want. If you have alternate suggestions, I'm always glad to read them. All I ever ask is that replies to my suggestions or questions accurately frame what I was saying. If, perhaps, I was not clear enough for any reader to do so, I'll be happy to rephrase.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I doubt every faction must mirror every other. Let them differ appropriately but meaningfully, and let members of a faction in good standing find sanctuary, safe harbor, with their faction.
I'm in full agreement, as long as none are given bonuses, items, or perks that provide them a meaningful advantage over any other or the rest of the player base.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see Factions that PvP as a refuge for some CC's so they grow small power blocks in different settlements (around the temple they build there). That way they can gain a voting right per settlement (ie trans-national or cultural eg much like relgions). It just adds diversity and opportunity for powermongering.
I see Factions that PvP as a refuge for some CC's so they grow small power blocks in different settlements (around the temple they build there). That way they can gain a voting right per settlement (ie trans-national or cultural eg much like relgions). It just adds diversity and opportunity for powermongering.
It is a lot more likely, especially if faction membership confers any tangible bonus on the player, that settlements will be dictating which factions you will be a member of than that CC's will be influencing settlements due to their faction.
Nor is it likely that CC's will be given voting rights if they are not sponsored companies of a settlement in my opinion and I doubt that any serious settlement is going to sponsor a company that aren't all willing to be members of the settlement. I would think it much more likely that transnational entities will be someones second or third cc allegiance (ie one of the non sponsored CC slots allowed)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The way I see it, is that Factions could be a way for players to "randomly " join a settlement become really essential then more "randoms" join and even intra-recruited then they declare they're joining a faction to help the settlement pvp more... but inreality it was a long-game to seize control ie form their political unit in the settlement with help from other same factions elsewhere to gain majority control of the settlement or even influence it's foreign policy etc on voting issues...
That could be a way for Factions to be? I see what you are saying, it might be too difficult to gain a foot-hold in a settlement. But I like the idea that different agendas are bubbling away under the serene uniformity of settlements.
