Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, Steelwing brings up some good points that need to be payed attention to. Whether anyone likes the way he writes them or not.You didn't pay any attention to what the CEO said about Steelwing and called the CEO toxic, as if you decide what is toxic instead of GW.
Ryan did not mince words, he explained what is toxic for the community and what they will do about it. Are you trying to crowdforge who has authority over PFO to decide what is toxic? That is like sailing your ship at the lighthouse and telling it ,you need to move because you are in my way.
Yeah, I did pay attention... I dont think you did by the response you just made. Its a half-assed attempt to twist what I was saying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, Steelwing brings up some good points that need to be payed attention to. Whether anyone likes the way he writes them or not.You didn't pay any attention to what the CEO said about Steelwing and called the CEO toxic, as if you decide what is toxic instead of GW.
Ryan did not mince words, he explained what is toxic for the community and what they will do about it. Are you trying to crowdforge who has authority over PFO to decide what is toxic? That is like sailing your ship at the lighthouse and telling it ,you need to move because you are in my way.
Yeah, I did pay attention... I dont think you did by the response you just made. Its a half-assed attempt to twist what I was saying.
Sorry if you really did not get it , I was being absurd to point out other absurdity, as in using sarcasm not to be taken literally .
However ,the CEO of GW did define Steelwings posting as toxic so your defense of what he does is approval of what has been defined as toxic by GW, it is not going to change if you debate it and defend what steelwing has done, it is toxic as defined by GW and should not be encouraged.
I suspect you are using the same dumb ploy on me that you used on Ryan, accuse the one who points out wrongdoing of being the REAL wrongdoer. So you advise us all to ignore this quote from Ryan when you say what you said in the first quote at the top,
" This is the kind of toxic activities we want to eliminate from our public discourse. "
The CEO doesn't just throw the word toxic around to win a personal argument, he has the authority to 'eliminate' it .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards
to be a fun and friendly place. Questions? Check the FAQ.
Name calling, etc. aren't welcome on these boards. If you want to bicker and argue and insult people, please take it elsewhere. I expect PFO will have a similar "Don't be a Jerk" rule.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He is the CEO of GW not the CEO of Paizo. These are the Paizo boards. So the authority for anything here is questionable.
Telling someone that he doesnt like them, and has though they were on a downward spiral from there, telling them he doesnt believe them, and etc is toxic for a CEO to say on the open forums.
He is the CEO of GW, and needs to know that he is supposed to be on a higher level then the rest of us.
Regardless of what you may think, Noone... not even the CEO of GW gets to define a word. Toxic means Toxic no matter who it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really enjoy Ryan speaking on a human level with those of us on the forums - and if that means he will end up trading snark with someone, so be it. People do not need to pretend to like one another, whether they are on 'the same level' or not.
I do not like the attitude I generally see in Steelwing's posts, but I understand his point in this thread, and I'm sure it's being considered by the GW team.
Frankly, I enjoyed seeing Ryan post as much as he did , snarky or not. It shows his presence, and how much he cares about this game. Given all of the fantastically wonderful things about this game, and the vision of Ryan and the others making it, I see no reason to suddenly doubt that they will continue working to create this game at its maximum potential. If GW started having people banned who express negative opinions of them, I might start doubting they care about us - but so far, I've only seen caring for the community from every one of the staff.
I'd love it if we could move on from this subject, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He is the CEO of GW not the CEO of Paizo. These are the Paizo boards. So the authority for anything here is questionable.
Lisa, the CEO of Paizo works closely with him. I believe she is also the CFO of Goblinworks. The fact that he is labelled clearly as the CEO of Goblinworks on these forums is not meaningless. The fact that Paizo gave them this space to use for our discussions of Pathfinder Online is not meaningless. Disrespecting him here is basically slapping Paizo in the face and can end up with moderator action if taken too far.
These forums have been subject to far too much negativity. We need to focus on giving our opinions with a positive attitude and less attacking people or ideas. It doesn't matter who started what, we shouldn't be attacking anyone. If it can't be said in a non-insulting manner, it shouldn't be said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Folks
It is no secret by now that myself and mr Dancey do not like each other. However I suspect he would agree with me on the following (maybe the only thing we agree on :) )
"We are both big boys now and able to fight our own corners. We do not need nor do we wish the rest of the forum population to be taking sides and arguing over the fact that the two of us had a public spat"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Folks
It is no secret by now that myself and mr Dancey do not like each other. However I suspect he would agree with me on the following (maybe the only thing we agree on :) )
"We are both big boys now and able to fight our own corners. We do not need nor do we wish the rest of the forum population to be taking sides and arguing over the fact that the two of us had a public spat"
Well done Sir.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Folks
It is no secret by now that myself and mr Dancey do not like each other. However I suspect he would agree with me on the following (maybe the only thing we agree on :) )
"We are both big boys now and able to fight our own corners. We do not need nor do we wish the rest of the forum population to be taking sides and arguing over the fact that the two of us had a public spat"
It was not a public spat , that is an attempt to whitewash what is going on. The CEO of GW called your posts Toxic Activity, that means toxic for the community, you have placed us on the side of being subjected to toxic behavior, we would have to ignore Ryan's authority to pretend we are not involved. It is not just between you and Ryan, not that I wouldn't get involved if it was just you picking on him, but you were called out by GW for toxic behavior and your response is to pretend it was not, or in the case of Xeen to pretend GW cant define toxic behavior for this forum.
The bottom line is ,it is not time to move on if moving on means more of the same toxic ( as defined by GW) posting from you. Why should we put up with this from you and why do you think you can just pretend you are having a personal disagreement with some guy , when it is the CEO who calls you out on your wrong behavior? You don't think you do anything wrong or don't care that you do, but it is not your place to decide if what you do here is wrong, those that work for GW decide and they have decided.
Folks
It is no secret by now that myself and mr Dancey do not like each other. However I suspect he would agree with me on the following (maybe the only thing we agree on :) )
"We are both big boys now and able to fight our own corners. We do not need nor do we wish the rest of the forum population to be taking sides and arguing over the fact that the two of us had a public spat"
It was not a public spat , that is an attempt to whitewash what is going on. The CEO of GW called your posts Toxic Activity, that means toxic for the community, you have placed us on the side of being subjected to toxic behavior, we would have to ignore Ryan's authority to pretend we are not involved. It is not just between you and Ryan, not that I wouldn't get involved if it was just you picking on him, but you were called out by GW for toxic behavior and your response is to pretend it was not, or in the case of Xeen to pretend GW cant define toxic behavior for this forum.
The bottom line is ,it is not time to move on if moving on means more of the same toxic ( as defined by GW) posting from you. Why should we put up with this from you and why do you think you can just pretend you are having a personal disagreement with some guy , when it is the CEO who calls you out on your wrong behavior? You don't think you do anything wrong or don't care that you do, but it is not your place to decide if what you do here is wrong, those that work for GW decide and they have decided.
By all means keep the argument going don't accuse either me or mr Dancey of keeping the forums toxic though.
I am a customer I am allowed to question the company that wants my business. Paizo has it in their power to ban me if they wish. So far they have chosen not to. Your defence of Dancey adds nothing to the forum and he would be the first to agree he is capable of defending himself as am I. What do you think you are achieving here?
My statement applied to both sides Xeen. The forums do not benefit from people taking either side. I am sure myself and Mr Dancey will come to some sort of uneasy truce at some point with regards to how I ask him questions and how he replies to them which to be frank is all thats needed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe the plan for PFO is that the community will all choose to refrain from what GW defines as toxic towards the community, you are choosing to continue and see how much it takes to get banned. This game might be worth it for you to let go of that attitude that causes you to not care if what you do is toxic to the rest of us. I don't just mean the gameplay but the community is worth respecting and will stay that way when there is a game to play, I believe.
I believe the plan for PFO is that the community will all choose to refrain from what GW defines as toxic towards the community, you are choosing to continue and see how much it takes to get banned. This game might be worth it for you to let go of that attitude that causes you to not care if what you do is toxic to the rest of us. I don't just mean the gameplay but the community is worth respecting and will stay that way when there is a game to play, I believe.
I don't need to step outside the rules in game which I have demonstrated countless times by descriptions of how a group like mine would function.
I have as yet had not a single post moderated so why you think I am skating towards a ban eludes me.
I have contributed positively and conversed politely with many people. Want an example who I am sure will confirm as Pax Shane Gifford (sorry Shane you are the most recent didn't deliberately drag you in). I have only gone combative where others forum users (except Dancey ) have been combative to me previously. If you dispute this show me an instance of me being combative first...bet you cant (No I wont accept the argument that because I used a title in quote marks that was combative first)
This community if I can remind you had members who told me I was only a member of this community if they accepted me. (Quandary I believe) when I made the mild statement that by delurking and posting I was joining the community.
Pretend its all down to me all you want but frankly I have had hostility thrust my way since I got here. I have had false claims made against me (People have claimed for example I have demanded changes yet can't find a single quote where I have demanded changes). People have put words in my mouth which I have never uttered ( recent example where it seems I had disputed the pvp window idea when actually I am a supporter and the only thing I disputed was allowing max DI increase on to narrow a window).
@ Notmyrealname
When someone is making an obvious effort to relax a situation, it does not help anything to keep adding fuel. There is no need for further venom.
Apologies bringslite you posted while I was typing a reply to notmyrealname
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
FolksIt is no secret by now that myself and mr Dancey do not like each other. However I suspect he would agree with me on the following (maybe the only thing we agree on :) )
"We are both big boys now and able to fight our own corners. We do not need nor do we wish the rest of the forum population to be taking sides and arguing over the fact that the two of us had a public spat"
I perfectly agree with this. Steelwings toned changed and Ryan hasn't said any thing in a while and yet every one else is carrying it on.
I imagine his posts are worth something or he would have been removed already. If they get to the point that they aren't then I am sure he will. You don't have to like some one's tone for the information to be relevant, and a lot of his is.
As for Ryan's replies, every one is human and imo they were snarkish and probably shouldn't have been posted but he also made relevant points. Some times you have to slap some one to get their attention. Enough said
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Apologies bringslite you posted while I was typing a reply to notmyrealname@ Notmyrealname
When someone is making an obvious effort to relax a situation, it does not help anything to keep adding fuel. There is no need for further venom.
Such is the joy and wonder of written converse between many bored guys on Friday night. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My statement applied to both sides Xeen. The forums do not benefit from people taking either side. I am sure myself and Mr Dancey will come to some sort of uneasy truce at some point with regards to how I ask him questions and how he replies to them which to be frank is all thats needed.
I was answering your question.
My statement applied to both sides Xeen. The forums do not benefit from people taking either side. I am sure myself and Mr Dancey will come to some sort of uneasy truce at some point with regards to how I ask him questions and how he replies to them which to be frank is all thats needed.I was answering your question.
While I appreciate it the answer is still to an extent fanning the flames and I am sure both I and Goblinworks would rather the forum revolved around debating the game than debating the positions of myself and Mr Dancey
Let it go, gentlemen.
I was trying to...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No matter what the min/max ends up being for the PvP window, it needs to be just large enough that it costs a significant amount of resources to maintain NPC guards for that vulnerable time. Now what is considered significant will still have to be decided. A settlement needs to be balanced and you buff one area up, another should be lacking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once built, an Outpost produces goods based on the relevant Knowledge skills of its manager. Companies must appoint one of their members to manage each Outpost (which, of course, takes up one of his active crafting/working queues, just like managing a settlement structure). Additional "workers" can be added to an Outpost to boost its production (also preventing them from working on other structures).
Hmm, I wonder about where they're currently headed with crafting. I seem to remember before people had concerns about a crafting system which was only sitting there staring at a bar and waiting for your character to finish, and many ideas were thrown around about how crafting could be done better than you average MMO crafting. Sounds to me like GW has a pretty good idea of what they want to do with that, based on the part in parenthesis above...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
honestly I think during the pvp window, NPC guards strength should taper off the bigger the settlement gets. The window allows smaller settlements to stay relatively safe from getting taken over while they are young and not as strong, however as they get larger these artificial protections should be slowly taken away until the most advanced settlements have a 24/7 window and their npcs are not a deterant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
honestly I think during the pvp window, NPC guards strength should taper off the bigger the settlement gets. The window allows smaller settlements to stay relatively safe from getting taken over while they are young and not as strong, however as they get larger these artificial protections should be slowly taken away until the most advanced settlements have a 24/7 window and their npcs are not a deterant.
That's the idea, though the specifics might be a little different in GW's mind. The bigger your settlement gets, the larger the vulnerability window is and thus the less you can rely on NPC guards. However, it should be noted that at the moment it's totally optional; you could have a settlement of 5000 people with the same vulnerability window as a settlement of 300, if you wanted. That just means the big settlement's buildings will be underdeveloped compared to its competition, and it will likely be at a disadvantage due to the lack of training and high-quality gear.
That's the idea, though the specifics might be a little different in GW's mind. The bigger your settlement gets, the larger the vulnerability window is and thus the less you can rely on NPC guards. However, it should be noted that at the moment it's totally optional; you could have a settlement of 5000 people with the same vulnerability window as a settlement of 300, if you wanted. That just means the big settlement's buildings will be underdeveloped compared to its competition, and it will likely be at a disadvantage due to the lack of training and high-quality gear.honestly I think during the pvp window, NPC guards strength should taper off the bigger the settlement gets. The window allows smaller settlements to stay relatively safe from getting taken over while they are young and not as strong, however as they get larger these artificial protections should be slowly taken away until the most advanced settlements have a 24/7 window and their npcs are not a deterant.
I would argue strongly for settlement choice in the matter.
A settlement of 2000 players that only play for a particular 6 hours a day is a lot more vulnerable than a settlement of 500 players that are willing to log on as needed. Let players set the PVP windows to suit themselves
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well its not only that, but it creates a choice for a settlement.
you can have a 2000 player settlement no issues. It might tax your ability to train folks, however unless you increase your towns DI your pvp window doesnt get larger. So if that settlement doesnt want to open themselves up that much they can stay at whatever index the want to, it should be a choice to increase the DI, it shouldnt be something where all of a sudden you realized you went up a notch and lost protections if you didnt want to.
Well its not only that, but it creates a choice for a settlement.
you can have a 2000 player settlement no issues. It might tax your ability to train folks, however unless you increase your towns DI your pvp window doesnt get larger. So if that settlement doesnt want to open themselves up that much they can stay at whatever index the want to, it should be a choice to increase the DI, it shouldnt be something where all of a sudden you realized you went up a notch and lost protections if you didnt want to.
I thought it was the other way around and that a wider pvp window allowed a larger DI ( you still had to earn the di points but your cap was higher)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We cannot forget this though. The PVP window, from what I remember, does not opt the settlement out of PVP. You can still attack the settlement during their closed window, you will just have more NPC's to deal with. They are tougher and spawn faster. I doubt they are on the level of Concord though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We cannot forget this though. The PVP window, from what I remember, does not opt the settlement out of PVP. You can still attack the settlement during their closed window, you will just have more NPC's to deal with. They are tougher and spawn faster. I doubt they are on the level of Concord though.
well the thing is if there is a pvp window, then the NPCs need to be on that level. Otherwise you will have the largest groups tower diving the settlements and taking over the second they set up shop. GW doesnt want to encourage that since they want to allow settlements the time to grow so that they are able to handle the large scale warfare.
So if you are near the top in DI then sure being able to punch through your NPCs should be able to be done but it should be very costly, it shouldnt be something thats just done on a whim.
For the lower DI folks i think it should be prohibitive to attack them during off hours, as in you would rather go into a full open warfare with a top DI settlement than attack a low DI settlement during off hours.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@leperkhaun, they need to be careful that it isn't impossible to attack a smaller settlement outside the window. One scenario which was brought up before was the situation whereby a large settlement surrounds itself with empty or near empty smaller settlements with minimum PvP windows. In this way, the larger settlement's defenses can migrate with the PvP window along the borderlands and the large settlement will be very well protected. Just a thought.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@leperkhaun, they need to be careful that it isn't impossible to attack a smaller settlement outside the window. One scenario which was brought up before was the situation whereby a large settlement surrounds itself with empty or near empty smaller settlements with minimum PvP windows. In this way, the larger settlement's defenses can migrate with the PvP window along the borderlands and the large settlement will be very well protected. Just a thought.
The way to combat this is to make a nation all adopt the same PVP window. If they choose not to be a nation you dont actually need to attack the satellite settlements and can just bypass them
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@leperkhaun, they need to be careful that it isn't impossible to attack a smaller settlement outside the window. One scenario which was brought up before was the situation whereby a large settlement surrounds itself with empty or near empty smaller settlements with minimum PvP windows. In this way, the larger settlement's defenses can migrate with the PvP window along the borderlands and the large settlement will be very well protected. Just a thought.The way to combat this is to make a nation all adopt the same PVP window. If they choose not to be a nation you dont actually need to attack the satellite settlements and can just bypass them
I see no reason for the smaller members of a kingdom to take on a larger PVP window. If that were the case alliances would be much harder to form as undesirable for those smaller entities.
Identical DI are not likely unless they were capped at a given level.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@pax
well thats true but on the other hand a settlement that would have NPCs that powerful would have a really low DI, which means that its training and extra features would be really limited. I would imagine that many players dont want to get stuck only training 1/4-1/2 the skills and maybe even just low T2 equipment.
Basically my intention was not to have all settlements be immune, but if a settlement wanted to stay at (making these numbers up) a DI of 3 when the max is 10 in order to make sure they can keep protections....thats up to them. They would miss a lot of the game OR they would have to trade for training time (which i expect to be a very very valuable thing).
The only issue I have with this way would be larger organizations controlling smaller settlements, setting DI to be really low just to use the settlements as buffers until they can grow into it and then start increasing the DI.
@leperkhaun, they need to be careful that it isn't impossible to attack a smaller settlement outside the window. One scenario which was brought up before was the situation whereby a large settlement surrounds itself with empty or near empty smaller settlements with minimum PvP windows. In this way, the larger settlement's defenses can migrate with the PvP window along the borderlands and the large settlement will be very well protected. Just a thought.The way to combat this is to make a nation all adopt the same PVP window. If they choose not to be a nation you dont actually need to attack the satellite settlements and can just bypass themI see no reason for the smaller members of a kingdom to take on a larger PVP window. If that were the case alliances would be much harder to form as undesirable for those smaller entities.
Identical DI are not likely unless they were capped at a given level.
If the kingdom is not protecting you then there is no reason to join that kingdom. This is what allows a smaller settlement to have a wider DI. This suggestion however was in response to the worry of using smaller settlements with small DI as a buffer zone around a bigger settlement. I am not really fussed either way to be honest
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some observations
- GW has stated that having a greater DI requires a greater PvP vulnerability window, so that is one of the downsides of having a large organization.
- GW has also stated that War will be expensive economicaly and I think it highly likely that they will require you to be at War in order to damage the settlement defences.
- It is also likely that you may need to build siege equipment to actualy conquer a fortified settlement and the cost of transporting such over long distances or the resources to construct such could be rather significant as well.
- I believe that you don't actualy "conquer" settlements but rather destroy them, which allows potentialy someone else to build there. It can't be you, because you aren't allowed membership in more then one settlement.
Taken all together, this could force settlements to be rather selective in thier choice of attacking (to destroy) other settlements and mean that conflicts are much more likely to be local in nature. It could also make the practice of large well organized settlements routienely going out to destroy small frontier settlements simply cost prohibitive.
As a large organization....how many times are you going to want to go out and destroy a distant frontier settlement if it costs you 100K gold to do so and you gain absolutely NOTHING directly in return? When your other large neighbor is NOT spending any of it's money doing that but instead using it's money to further develop it's own local economy?
The size of the PvP window need not be the only governing limitation on settlement destruction....the economic cost of settlement warfare and of projecting power over distance can also be limiting factors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- I believe that you don't actualy "conquer" settlements but rather destroy them, which allows potentialy someone else to build there. It can't be you, because you aren't allowed membership in more then one settlement.
I think this would be a failure. You should be able to take over without completely destroying a settlement's structures. Also, it could totally be you rebuilding because you'd be claiming the new settlement as your new home. Probably as an expansion of a Kingdom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've always assumed an attacker either has to spin off some of his companies to become the new owners of the conquered settlement, or installs an allied set of companies. It potentially dilutes the power base of the attacker.
I think that you might be right that most conflicts will be local. A settlement might decide rather than conquering their neighbor, to merely wrest control of 3-4 POI hexes away - leaving the attacker stronger with a weak neighbor as a buffer against others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- I believe that you don't actualy "conquer" settlements but rather destroy them, which allows potentialy someone else to build there. It can't be you, because you aren't allowed membership in more then one settlement.I think this would be a failure. You should be able to take over without completely destroying a settlement's structures. Also, it could totally be you rebuilding because you'd be claiming the new settlement as your new home. Probably as an expansion of a Kingdom.
Remember though, you CAN'T be a member of 2 settlements....which means you and whoever else was joining you would have to LEAVE your old settlement in order to JOIN the new one...at least that's the way I understood the settlement mechanic to work.
It's sensible to me....with a limited map (even if they make it big), I don't think they'd want a single group of players controling 50 different settlements directly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The last point about you cannot take more than one settlement is basically a non issue. What will happen is that the large organization will have one of their trusted leaders to leave their current settlement and take over the second one, OR they will have an alt do it. I would venture that It would be an alt with an aristocratic role to maximize the settlement.
I agree that going to war should be costly. However the cost is not only in fixed costs to declare war, build siege equipment and such. it is also in making sure your players stay well equipped with armor/weapons/consumables to attack or defend.
As to a large settlement taking over a distant frontier settlement. I can think of several reasons. Increased training, since training per settlement is finite after a certain amount of growth you can either get another settlement or stay where you are. Increased access to gathered materials. Remember Ryan said that some materials will be region specific. It could make sense for a large organization to have a middle/low DI settlement in areas to have a base from which to gather materials they normally wouldnt have. PoIs and Outposts. PoIs and outposts will normally be located near settlements, having a settlement means easier access to those resources. Strategic presence. It could act as a means to have a base of operations in an area that sees a lot of traffic or is just in a good spot. This means that if the organization wants to they can use that settlement as a base to exert influence without the need of longer supply lines and having a place to run to in case things go south. The last thing, and honestly this is the one i hope doesnt happen, is to use that settlement as a buffer for the real settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've always assumed an attacker either has to spin off some of his companies to become the new owners of the conquered settlement, or installs an allied set of companies. It potentially dilutes the power base of the attacker.
I think that you might be right that most conflicts will be local. A settlement might decide rather than conquering their neighbor, to merely wrest control of 3-4 POI hexes away - leaving the attacker stronger with a weak neighbor as a buffer against others.
Yup....that is one of the things that hindered expansion of vast empires historicaly....the projection of power over distance had a very significant expense. It's true that an Empire could hive off a portion of it's populace/millitary essentialy creating a colony... but as time wore on it became very difficult to try to exert any sort of strong centralized control over those colonies and there was always a risk of losing it's investment in them to revolt, rebellion or even civil war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- I believe that you don't actualy "conquer" settlements but rather destroy them, which allows potentialy someone else to build there. It can't be you, because you aren't allowed membership in more then one settlement.I think this would be a failure. You should be able to take over without completely destroying a settlement's structures. Also, it could totally be you rebuilding because you'd be claiming the new settlement as your new home. Probably as an expansion of a Kingdom.Remember though, you CAN'T be a member of 2 settlements....which means you and whoever else was joining you would have to LEAVE your old settlement in order to JOIN the new one...at least that's the way I understood the settlement mechanic to work.
It's sensible to me....with a limited map (even if they make it big), I don't think they'd want a single group of players controling 50 different settlements directly.
That's what I said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The last point about you cannot take more than one settlement is basically a non issue. What will happen is that the large organization will have one of their trusted leaders to leave their current settlement and take over the second one, OR they will have an alt do it. I would venture that It would be an alt with an aristocratic role to maximize the settlement.
I agree that going to war should be costly. However the cost is not only in fixed costs to declare war, build siege equipment and such. it is also in making sure your players stay well equipped with armor/weapons/consumables to attack or defend.
As to a large settlement taking over a distant frontier settlement. I can think of several reasons. Increased training, since training per settlement is finite after a certain amount of growth you can either get another settlement or stay where you are. Increased access to gathered materials. Remember Ryan said that some materials will be region specific. It could make sense for a large organization to have a middle/low DI settlement in areas to have a base from which to gather materials they normally wouldnt have. PoIs and Outposts. PoIs and outposts will normally be located near settlements, having a settlement means easier access to those resources. Strategic presence. It could act as a means to have a base of operations in an area that sees a lot of traffic or is just in a good spot. This means that if the organization wants to they can use that settlement as a base to exert influence without the need of longer supply lines and having a place to run to in case things go south. The last thing, and honestly this is the one i hope doesnt happen, is to use that settlement as a buffer for the real settlement.
Yes it could happen that way, but there is also a real downside to dilluting your player base too much in order to care for and defend 2 geographicaly distant settlements. Outgrowing your current settlement space would be a legitimate reason for doing it.
My main point is that given these limiting elements it would force a (wise) organization into being selective about it's War's....you couldn't simply go around crushing every independant that appeared on the edge of the map because it would soon bankrupt you for no gain.... and even in conquest, you'd have to worry about spreading yourself too thin and trying to control too much territory, especialy if distance was a cost factor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is it right that we are considering a settlement as both definitions?
Settlement - group of companies working together
Settlement - a piece of land that has been settled
I dont remember reading that the organization called a settlement cannot own two settled territories.
There is only that You cannot, as an individual, be a member of more than one. That is how I understand it.