Nihimon 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.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but this sounds a lot like the exchange Ryan and I had at the time.
My understanding is that the only Social Organizations in PFO are: Group, Company, Settlement, and Nation. There is no Social Organization that maps to two Settlements unless those Settlements are bound together in a Nation, and at that point that Social Organization automatically includes all member Settlements.
I hope this is helpful.
Nihimon wrote:Sorry for the confusion.I'm sorry I can't seem to communicate this effectively. :(
Quote:If I'm a member of the out-of-game Community named "The Seventh Veil", and we collectively establish two Settlements, will it be possible to differentiate in-game between residents of our Settlements that are members of The Seventh Veil and those that aren't.I have prepared this Venn Diagram to help..
The light grey circle is a physical structure called a Settlement. It is named "The Seventh Veil".
Within it are characters who are members of a social structure also called "The Seventh Veil".
There are also characters within it who are not members of the Seventh Veil.
Sometimes, the members of the Seventh Veil go outside the Settlement. No matter where they go, they are always members of the Seventh Veil social structure.
No matter if the non-members are inside the physical structure or not, they are never members of the Seventh Veil social structure.
Think of it like a fraternity. They have a building with their name on it. And they have a social structure that represents people who have membership in that fraternity.
Ryan Dancey wrote:I have prepared this Venn Diagram to help..That helps a lot, but there's one minor piece that's still not clear.
The Grey circles are Settlements. The Green circles are the Settlement social organizations (fraternities). The Orange circles are the non-member residents. The Blue circle is the out-of-game community "The Seventh Veil".
Will it be possible to automatically include all members of the Blue circle in the Green circles when they move from one Settlement to another? Or will we have to explicitly include them in the Green circle when they move to a new Settlement?
Will there be any in-game social construct that can exactly map to the Blue circle?
Nihimon wrote:Will there be any in-game social construct that can exactly map to the Blue circle?Not as drawn. If the blue circle fully included the two gray circles than kind of, that's what a Player Nation is. But there will never be two gray circles (that is two physical Settlements shared by the same Settlement social entity).
You'd have 7th Veil A and 7th Veil B and The Player Nation of the 7th Veil would encompass both. People in A would not be in B, but both people in A and B would be in the Player Nation.
Some people are members of the Delta Delta Delta chapter at the University of Washington. Some people are members of the Delta Delta Delta chapter at Washington State University. All of them are members of the National Association of Delta Delta Delta.
When the members from the UW chapter go to WSU, they are guests in someone else's house. And vice versa.
There is no physical chapter house owned by the National Association, but they do own an awesome bar in Vegas.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
That answers it.
Meta gaming to the extreme.
Im not sure how much of these game have been played by the creators, but the rules they are setting forth... to try to control the game, will lead to nothing but meta gaming. Is that what is wanted? Seems that way.
"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"
replace star systems with gamers
Pax Shane Gifford Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Pax Shane Gifford Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Meta gaming has a vague meaning because it is termed for any of the things you asked about.
All of it will be used. an example of this discussion: If an organization settlement can only own one territory settlement. Alts will be used to "own" the settlement, while it is worked for resources to support the "main" settlement. (there are other ways to do this as well, being meta gamed, but this is one example)
If you want to transfer items from a LG character to a CE character and not take the alignment hit, you either use a who cares alt to take the alignment hit or use the market to cleanse it with the proper sale amount so you know you will get it.
If you want to run a kingdom with all alignments, just make up several and control them from outside the game. Everyone uses in game player chat channels, TS, and a shared forum. Have alts in each to trade resources needed. etc
We can go on and on. But most of these are not required, except GW is trying to control them.
There is no need to limit the settlement organization to one piece of territory other then to try to control expansion.
There is no reason to have alignment hits for transferred goods, other then to try to control shared items between alts.
There is no reason to use the one step alignment rule other then to try to control numbers in a settlement.
So on and etc
Pax Shane Gifford Goblin Squad Member |
They said the one step alignment rule is to force player groups to make meaningful choices about alignment. If one group can have every alignment in it the meaningfulness of alignment is further lessened.
But that is just nitpicking. Your main point is that, if systems are put in place, people will sidestep the systems. Though that is true, it's only true up to a point. For example, though forbidding some things such as alliances between different alignments will only cause people to make meta-alliances, you can create incentives for in-game alliances which cause people who operate only with meta-alliances to miss out. Really for most of the actions they want to forbid, I think most times it's better to incentivize an alternate behavior and let the min-max gamer mentality steer players toward the desired actions.
So to sum up my feelings on the matter, though GW can't stop people from metagaming around their systems, I do think they can make the systems worth using so that players will change their groups to utilize the in-game methods.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Being Goblin Squad Member |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure there will be plenty of meta gaming. If they let go a bit though, there wont be forced meta gaming. In my mind, a lot of these controls are put in place to prevent meta gaming... but it only makes it forced in other ways instead.
I don't believe the controls being implemented are at all to prevent metagaming as you suggest.
The logic of your argument that relaxing 'control' mechanisms will increase control also seems fairly suspect.
Instead the designers have said they hope to make most of the metagaming tools irrelevant by including that functionality themselves. This is widely different from the motivations you impute.
avari3 Goblin Squad Member |
Yeah like I've said many times before, this belief that hard coding certain conducts into a video game is not possible is utter hogwash. Not saying that players won't always find ways to use things not as intended or work around others, but if you want to funnel PvP, you can. Heck, EvE, for all of it's free-for-all reputation, does in fact funnel the PvP into null sec.
You can hard code certain behaviors. Yes you can, yes you can.
GrumpyMel Goblin Squad Member |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meta gaming has a vague meaning because it is termed for any of the things you asked about.
All of it will be used. an example of this discussion: If an organization settlement can only own one territory settlement. Alts will be used to "own" the settlement, while it is worked for resources to support the "main" settlement. (there are other ways to do this as well, being meta gamed, but this is one example)
If you want to transfer items from a LG character to a CE character and not take the alignment hit, you either use a who cares alt to take the alignment hit or use the market to cleanse it with the proper sale amount so you know you will get it.
If you want to run a kingdom with all alignments, just make up several and control them from outside the game. Everyone uses in game player chat channels, TS, and a shared forum. Have alts in each to trade resources needed. etc
We can go on and on. But most of these are not required, except GW is trying to control them.
There is no need to limit the settlement organization to one piece of territory other then to try to control expansion.
There is no reason to have alignment hits for transferred goods, other then to try to control shared items between alts.
There is no reason to use the one step alignment rule other then to try to control numbers in a settlement.
So on and etc
Basicaly the Developers want to create a certain set of rules for how the game functions. Obviously players can find ways, in certain circumstances to circumvent those rules but at least the Dev's in many instances can make it more difficult/painfull to do so through imposition of a certain set of controls.
For instance, they can't really stop players from using Alts to technicaly "own" more then one settlement but they could require a significant amount of active play from the settlement leadership in order for it to thrive...meaning players that really wanted to "own" 2 settlements using Alts would have to invest alot of extra time to do so. They could also create rules that made it mechanicaly less efficient for a settlement to use external resources then internal ones. Making people sacrifice a level of efficiency in order to support a more geographicaly dispersed organization split between multiple settlements.
Some of these methods might have unintended side effects or might frankly be more trouble then they are worth to impliment. So while Developers can't completely force players to play the game as intended and avoid meta-gaming, they can, IF they really want to do so, make it more cumbersome, difficult and inefficient for players to do so in many instances. The key, though, is that some Developers don't actualy WANT to do so. For instance, even though I haven't really played EvE...I've gotten the impression that CCP actualy actively supports meta-gaming and wants people to play thier game that way....thus they don't make any efforts to try to reduce it. I'm not sure if GW's attitude will be the same. It seems to me that they do invest some effort, where feasable, to make it more cumbersome to meta-game some aspects of play. YMMV.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Sure you can code certain things, like reputation.
The meta gaming that CCP supports are the types of things they arent going to put into the game. External skill calculators and monitors, gambling sites, etc. Most other things, like I listed above, they dont have to bother with because they arent trying to control it in the first place.
What I am saying is, why code in things to focus play styles when you can just go around it and still have the play style? How does that provide meaning to the game?
GrumpyMel Goblin Squad Member |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure you can code certain things, like reputation.
The meta gaming that CCP supports are the types of things they arent going to put into the game. External skill calculators and monitors, gambling sites, etc. Most other things, like I listed above, they dont have to bother with because they arent trying to control it in the first place.
What I am saying is, why code in things to focus play styles when you can just go around it and still have the play style? How does that provide meaning to the game?
Same reason why some FPS games (for example) try to impliment anti-hack, anti-cheat mechanisms. It's an attempt to get people to play the game according to the rules it was designed with, rather then circumventing those rules and ruining the game for other players. They may not be able to get all hackers/cheaters but they hopefully discourage enough of them that it makes the game tolerable to play for the players who actualy want to play the game the way it was designed....and possibly drive a percentage of the hackers/cheaters toward games that are lower hanging fruit for them.
Aeioun Plainsweed Goblin Squad Member |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no need to limit the settlement organization to one piece of territory other then to try to control expansion.
There is no reason to use the one step alignment rule other then to try to control numbers in a settlement.
I think these are absolute necessities for PFO.
I'm sure GW will implement mechanics, some of that we have allready seen, that don't encourage metagaming. An example: Only one character can manage a one aspect of a settlement, same can be done for kingdoms. So companies, settlements and kingdoms all have aspects or slots and only one character fits into any one slot at any one time. If you want the most out of that slot, that character must be trained. So metagaming works in making alliances(, which is not really metagaming because the game only supports three social entities: companies, settelements and kingdoms,) but not in managing a company, settlement or kingdom. Simple. And why would anyone be at war with someone and outside of the game at peace? Doesn't make sense.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen wrote:There is no need to limit the settlement organization to one piece of territory other then to try to control expansion.
There is no reason to use the one step alignment rule other then to try to control numbers in a settlement.
I think these are absolute necessities for PFO.
I'm sure GW will implement mechanics, some of that we have allready seen, that don't encourage metagaming. An example: Only one character can manage a one aspect of a settlement, same can be done for kingdoms. So companies, settlements and kingdoms all have aspects or slots and only one character fits into any one slot at any one time. If you want the most out of that slot, that character must be trained. So metagaming works in making alliances(, which is not really metagaming because the game only supports three social entities: companies, settelements and kingdoms,) but not in managing a company, settlement or kingdom. Simple. And why would anyone be at war with someone and outside of the game at peace? Doesn't make sense.
Having limited slots on running a settlement/company/kingdom does not change anything. There can still be limited slots for each settlement territory. The person in charge of that will have a trained alt for each slot he is assigned to. The guys that run the settlements, the big ones, will have a dozen characters trained.
"Why would you be at war in game but at peace out of game?" If your referring to something I said, Im not sure what it was. But if your asking how that can be meta gamed... I can answer.
My guess would be, and we dont know the rules yet, that there will be an increase DI cost for each group declaring war on one entity. So what you do is have your meta gamed ally... who cannot be your ally in game because they are opposed alignments... declare war on you to increase everyones costs, and set your view to each other as blue.
Aeioun Plainsweed Goblin Squad Member |
Having limited slots on running a settlement/company/kingdom does not change anything. There can still be limited slots for each settlement territory. The person in charge of that will have a trained alt for each slot he is assigned to. The guys that run the settlements, the big ones, will have a dozen characters trained.
I think this is working as intended. A player can play as many characters he can afford to.
"Why would you be at war in game but at peace out of game?" If your referring to something I said, Im not sure what it was. But if your asking how that can be meta gamed... I can answer.
It was to point the fact that people are free to socialize outside the game how they want, but that there should be clear game mechanics to control ingame social groups and states between those groups. I think that's what we are paying for.
My guess would be, and we dont know the rules yet, that there will be an increase DI cost for each group declaring war on one entity. So what you do is have your meta gamed ally... who cannot be your ally in game because they are opposed alignments... declare war on you to increase everyones costs, and set your view to each other as blue.
This might a metagaming problem, I'm sure devs can work around it. Simple solution might be: Wage war on any social entity you want, pay DI according to the size of the opponent, defending oneself shouldn't cost anything. Of course all work-arounds can't be avoided but I think balance is the key.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Yep, working as intended... So why limit one social group Settlement to one territory settlement?
Sure we are paying for in game mechanics, but why spend a ton of time on those mechanics if they are truly meaningless?
Yeah, you can use this by making the cost based on the size of who you war dec... Then there would be no need to be at war in game and friends outside other then for the fun of it.
Urman Goblin Squad Member |
Yep, working as intended... So why limit one social group Settlement to one territory settlement?
I'd think the obvious question in return might would be: if one social group can thus control multiple settlements, why would they ever form a player-nation?
Simple solution might be: Wage war on any social entity you want, pay DI according to the size of the opponent, defending oneself shouldn't cost anything.
Yes, and this can be extended:
- DI cost to declare war on another settlement depends on relative size.
- If you are in a defensive alliance and your ally is attacked, your war dec costs against the attacker may be reduced.
- If you are in a nation, you might automatically be a defensive ally of all other members of the nation.
Drakhan Valane Goblin Squad Member |
Urman Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen wrote:Yep, working as intended... So why limit one social group Settlement to one territory settlement?Quote for where there are two different things? A settlement is a plot of land with people in it. They're one thing.
Upthread, Nihimon's post with the spoiler button - hides the quote from Ryan. I sort of don't disagree with you though. The quote is 18 months old(!) These days I'm thinking of a settlement more as a group of companies and people that hold a plot of land than as a social group.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen wrote:Yep, working as intended... So why limit one social group Settlement to one territory settlement?I'd think the obvious question in return might would be: if one social group can thus control multiple settlements, why would they ever form a player-nation?
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:Simple solution might be: Wage war on any social entity you want, pay DI according to the size of the opponent, defending oneself shouldn't cost anything.Yes, and this can be extended:
- DI cost to declare war on another settlement depends on relative size.
- If you are in a defensive alliance and your ally is attacked, your war dec costs against the attacker may be reduced.
- If you are in a nation, you might automatically be a defensive ally of all other members of the nation.
They form a nation as several of those groups of settlements working together. Each settlement groups run their settlements as they wish, but the nation has leadership to settle anything outside of the settlement matters. Dictate wars, peace treaties, ect... Kinda like the States and the United States (at least how it was done in the past)
Xeen wrote:Yep, working as intended... So why limit one social group Settlement to one territory settlement?Quote for where there are two different things? A settlement is a plot of land with people in it. They're one thing.
The social group settlement is the group of companies that form it. The territory settlement is the land they control. Yes they are the same thing until the same people decide to control two pieces of territory with the same members. Then they become two territory settlements with one social group settlement.
Yes, the social group settlement needs another name if this plays out that way.
Drakhan Valane Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Nihimon Goblin Squad Member |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who runs settlements then if not the companies that make it up?
Characters. Every player character will be a member of exactly one Settlement, but there's no requirement that they be a member of any Company.
Every character belongs to a Settlement, Not all Settlements are run by player characters.
You certainly do not need to belong to a company.
Aeioun Plainsweed Goblin Squad Member |
They form a nation as several of those groups of settlements working together. Each settlement groups run their settlements as they wish, but the nation has leadership to settle anything outside of the settlement matters. Dictate wars, peace treaties, ect... Kinda like the States and the United States (at least how it was done in the past)
Again, if you intend to get most out your companies, settlements and kingdoms they can't just be out-of-game entities. You have have dedicated character and lots of dedicated characters to fill all those slots to run those entities in-game businesses at max.
The social group settlement is the group of companies that form it. The territory settlement is the land they control. Yes they are the same thing until the same people decide to control two pieces of territory with the same members. Then they become two territory settlements with one social group settlement. So why limit one social group Settlement to one territory settlement?
You explained this better than anyone. $$$$It's to make money$$$$. No, I think it's to have more fun. :) So, that no one player becomes too dominating.
Urman Goblin Squad Member |
I figure that a basic/small settlement has 1 settlement hex + 6 POI in the surrounding hexes + 12 outposts in those hexes. That's 19 companies, each with enough characters to have enough influence to claim their settlement/POI/outpost.
Will there be some people who dominate and can use multiple alts to control multiple settlements? Sure. That mean they have either a metric ton of alts or a lot of less energetic players following them. I don't see why the two settlements need to be allowed to move in lock-step, though.
Drakhan Valane Goblin Squad Member |
Who runs settlements then if not the companies that make it up?
And yes, a company cannot be sponsored by two settlements, but that company can create an alt company for the second settlement. That is also a way around the one step alignment and a way around training problems.
Indeed. We call that starting a Kingdom (or Player-Nation) if you want to link them for the benefits.
See, you have characters running a Settlement, that Settlement can sponsor Companies to run its POIs (because it's more efficient, not because they strictly have to). Sure you can metagame it with alts, but it won't be as fun or easy as having actual players do it.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen wrote:Who runs settlements then if not the companies that make it up?Characters. Every player character will be a member of exactly one Settlement, but there's no requirement that they be a member of any Company.
Every character belongs to a Settlement, Not all Settlements are run by player characters.You certainly do not need to belong to a company.
Yeah... Characters run settlements. These characters will have the backing of one company or another... No need for quotes, as you have to build up from somewhere. No one is going to all of a sudden build a settlement and then attract companies to it. They will need to build up a company or three and those will create the settlement.
And yes, there are NPC settlements. What will they do? They are more of a non issue here.
Xeen wrote:They form a nation as several of those groups of settlements working together. Each settlement groups run their settlements as they wish, but the nation has leadership to settle anything outside of the settlement matters. Dictate wars, peace treaties, ect... Kinda like the States and the United States (at least how it was done in the past)Again, if you intend to get most out your companies, settlements and kingdoms they can't just be out-of-game entities. You have have dedicated character and lots of dedicated characters to fill all those slots to run those entities in-game businesses at max.
Xeen wrote:The social group settlement is the group of companies that form it. The territory settlement is the land they control. Yes they are the same thing until the same people decide to control two pieces of territory with the same members. Then they become two territory settlements with one social group settlement. So why limit one social group Settlement to one territory settlement?You explained this better than anyone. $$$$It's to make money$$$$. No, I think it's to have more fun. :) So, that no one player becomes too dominating.
There is always one person in charge, no matter how the game is setup. One charismatic person will be in control... How he handles that control is going to vary. No matter how high you go, you will always end at one man.
Drakhan Valane Goblin Squad Member |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Snippy, snip.
Yeah... Characters run settlements. These characters will have the backing of one company or another... And yes, there are NPC settlements.
But they are not required to do so. You can have a settlement with ZERO companies.
There is always one person in charge, no matter how the game is setup. One charismatic person will be in control... How he handles that control is going to vary. No matter how high you go, you will always end at one man.
Unless it's a group that's in charge.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
The group always has a leader.
It may not look that way, but there is always someone that either manipulates things, or is the go to guy for answers.
Sure you can have a settlement with zero companies. Good luck to them I guess. It still doesnt take away from the same group running multiple settlements. Using alt characters to get around the alignment restrictions.
Drakhan Valane Goblin Squad Member |
Nihimon Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
How are they gimping themselves? We have no idea what they are going to do with kingdoms at this point... What bonuses will they be losing?
You have two settlements to start, each divids up into one step alignment settlements to form a kingdom. So now they have two kingdoms, with every alignment under them, that are "allies" in the meta game because they cannot be in game.
You have 1 group, 2 kingdoms, that welcomes all players because they can.
How is that gimping themselves, they can bring anyone into their group and dominate. They will have kingdom bonuses, not between each kingdom but within each kingdom.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Aeioun Plainsweed Goblin Squad Member |
So let's brainstorm a little. A character, who dedicates himself to manage a settlement must visit that settlements town hall. He chooses an aspect to manage to fit his training. If he is dedicated to manage some aspect of the town hall, can he still manage a blacksmith or some aspect of a blacksmith building in the settlement? He could still manage an aspect of a PoI or an outpost as a member of a company.
If he wants to manage another settlement he would have to visit that settlements town hall. But a person can only be a member of one settlement. I think it makes sense. Why would he manage some other settlement he is not a member.
If he is member of a kingdom, where does he go to manage that kingdom. The kingdoms capital towns town hall perchance? How many settlements can belong to a kingdom?
Nihimon Goblin Squad Member |
Nihimon Goblin Squad Member |
If he is dedicated to manage some aspect of the town hall, can he still manage a blacksmith or some aspect of a blacksmith building in the settlement?
My understanding is that you assign a Character to a single Management Role. You could reassign that Character to another Management Role, but I believe that would release the prior assignment.
Aeioun Plainsweed Goblin Squad Member |
How are they gimping themselves? We have no idea what they are going to do with kingdoms at this point... What bonuses will they be losing?
You have two settlements to start, each divids up into one step alignment settlements to form a kingdom. So now they have two kingdoms, with every alignment under them, that are "allies" in the meta game because they cannot be in game.
You have 1 group, 2 kingdoms, that welcomes all players because they can.
How is that gimping themselves, they can bring anyone into their group and dominate. They will have kingdom bonuses, not between each kingdom but within each kingdom.
I think this something that can't be helped. It's just the way it is. If the same people want to run two or more kingdoms that have a metagame alliance to dominate the map, I think it's something that happens even without any game mechanics. There can't exist a game mechanics to prevent the same guy playing multiple characters the way he wants to.
GrumpyMel Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen,
Settlement and company membership are mechanicaly divorced from one another. You and I can be members of the same company but members of different settlements or members of the same settlement but different companies.
There is such a thing as a settlement charter which comes into existance when the settlement is claimed. The charter is specific to that one settlement which is located in a specific hex on the map. You (as a single character) can never be a member of more then one settlement charter at one time. A settlement can own POI's in resource hex's but not another settlement. That is how it is organized in the game, regardless of whatever your organization might do out of game.
Also the government form under which a settlement charter exists (autocracry, oligarchy, democracy) is specified when the charter exists. You may have whatever structure you desire to cook up out of game but in game you have no method of enforcing it, what counts is what's on the charter. So if you call yourself "el Supremo for life" out of game but your in game structure is "democracy" then you are SOL. Obviously there are advantages and disadvantages to both. For example, one of the advantages of not having a single individual that is in charge mechanicaly is that the organization doesn't have to worry about that individual being subverted by an outside force and doing something drastic like disolving the charter, etc.
Multiple settlements can form into an umbrella organization called a "Kingdom" and frankly as far as we know GW hasn't worked out all the details of just what that means yet.
GrumpyMel Goblin Squad Member |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The group always has a leader.
It may not look that way, but there is always someone that either manipulates things, or is the go to guy for answers.
Sure you can have a settlement with zero companies. Good luck to them I guess. It still doesnt take away from the same group running multiple settlements. Using alt characters to get around the alignment restrictions.
Depends upon what it actualy takes to run a successfull settlement. If it takes alot of ACTIVE play (we don't know yet), you may not effectively be able to run more then one settlement no matter how many characters you have.....or you may be hindering yourself because it may be more efficient to focus play time/efforts within one settlement then try to spread them out over multiple settlements. Alot of that is still very nebulous because all the mechanical details of implimentation are still be worked on, let alone play tested and tweaked.
IMO, you seem to be making alot of assumptions based on play experiences in a previous game even though the mechanics for how these things work in PFO may be entirely dissimilar.
Urman Goblin Squad Member |
You can have a settlement with ZERO companies.
I don't think that's exactly right. I think that there must be one company that has enough Influence to found the settlement: Companies serve as the instrument by which groups of players actually gain control of hexes in Pathfinder Online and enjoy a level of property ownership and management. A company that establishes control of a potential settlement hex by defeating its monstrous denizens can spend influence to found a settlement there.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Drakhan Valane Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen wrote:I think this something that can't be helped. It's just the way it is. If the same people want to run two or more kingdoms that have a metagame alliance to dominate the map, I think it's something that happens even without any game mechanics. There can't exist a game mechanics to prevent the same guy playing multiple characters the way he wants to.How are they gimping themselves? We have no idea what they are going to do with kingdoms at this point... What bonuses will they be losing?
You have two settlements to start, each divids up into one step alignment settlements to form a kingdom. So now they have two kingdoms, with every alignment under them, that are "allies" in the meta game because they cannot be in game.
You have 1 group, 2 kingdoms, that welcomes all players because they can.
How is that gimping themselves, they can bring anyone into their group and dominate. They will have kingdom bonuses, not between each kingdom but within each kingdom.
Exactly
Drakhan Valane Goblin Squad Member |
Nihimon wrote:Xeen wrote:There is always one person in charge, no matter how the game is setup. One charismatic person will be in control...Xeen wrote:... there is one in your group that the majority look to.There's quite a bit of difference between those two definitions.not really
Yes, really. Being looked up to is different from being in charge.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen wrote:The group always has a leader.
It may not look that way, but there is always someone that either manipulates things, or is the go to guy for answers.
Sure you can have a settlement with zero companies. Good luck to them I guess. It still doesnt take away from the same group running multiple settlements. Using alt characters to get around the alignment restrictions.
Depends upon what it actualy takes to run a successfull settlement. If it takes alot of ACTIVE play (we don't know yet), you may not effectively be able to run more then one settlement no matter how many characters you have.....or you may be hindering yourself because it may be more efficient to focus play time/efforts within one settlement then try to spread them out over multiple settlements. Alot of that is still very nebulous because all the mechanical details of implimentation are still be worked on, let alone play tested and tweaked.
IMO, you seem to be making alot of assumptions based on play experiences in a previous game even though the mechanics for how these things work in PFO may be entirely dissimilar.
Not really, a good leader delegates his authority. These people will have plenty of members, since they can recruit anyone to their group through the meta game.
Look at goons... They control most of 0.0 space in Eve. They do have alot of "allies" or pets if you will, along with alot of renters, but they do control it all. There is one person leading it all as well, but he has many minions.
Pyramid type structure.
Urman Goblin Squad Member |
But what happens if that company dissolves after the settlement is founded? Do they take out a settlement of 1000 just because that particular group decided a Company isn't their thing anymore?
That's a legitimate question. Maybe the controlling company of a settlement can't dissolve until they've handed the settlement off to another company (which must have enough Influence to control/own the settlement). Or the settlement devolves to a state of riot until a company steps forward to control it once again.
Just wild guesses on my part though. Maybe there doesn't need to be a company after founding (but I doubt that).
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen wrote:Yes, really. Being looked up to is different from being in charge.Nihimon wrote:Xeen wrote:There is always one person in charge, no matter how the game is setup. One charismatic person will be in control...Xeen wrote:... there is one in your group that the majority look to.There's quite a bit of difference between those two definitions.not really
What? Not looked up to, looked to for leadership.
One person in T7V, will be looked to by the others. That person, if he so desires, can grab control of the group... If done right, he could do it subtly and with no one realizing it. Or he could just lead from the group, making suggestions that the others will flock to, and never actually take control.
A leader is present whether you see it blatant or not.
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Xeen,
Settlement and company membership are mechanicaly divorced from one another. You and I can be members of the same company but members of different settlements or members of the same settlement but different companies.
There is such a thing as a settlement charter which comes into existance when the settlement is claimed. The charter is specific to that one settlement which is located in a specific hex on the map. You (as a single character) can never be a member of more then one settlement charter at one time. A settlement can own POI's in resource hex's but not another settlement. That is how it is organized in the game, regardless of whatever your organization might do out of game.
Also the government form under which a settlement charter exists (autocracry, oligarchy, democracy) is specified when the charter exists. You may have whatever structure you desire to cook up out of game but in game you have no method of enforcing it, what counts is what's on the charter. So if you call yourself "el Supremo for life" out of game but your in game structure is "democracy" then you are SOL. Obviously there are advantages and disadvantages to both. For example, one of the advantages of not having a single individual that is in charge mechanicaly is that the organization doesn't have to worry about that individual being subverted by an outside force and doing something drastic like disolving the charter, etc.
Multiple settlements can form into an umbrella organization called a "Kingdom" and frankly as far as we know GW hasn't worked out all the details of just what that means yet.
Maybe you only skimmed my posts?
Xeen Goblin Squad Member |
Drakhan Valane wrote:But what happens if that company dissolves after the settlement is founded? Do they take out a settlement of 1000 just because that particular group decided a Company isn't their thing anymore?That's a legitimate question. Maybe the controlling company of a settlement can't dissolve until they've handed the settlement off to another company (which must have enough Influence to control/own the settlement). Or the settlement devolves to a state of riot until a company steps forward to control it once again.
Just wild guesses on my part though. Maybe there doesn't need to be a company after founding (but I doubt that).
Ryan wants to set it up that this cannot happen. Though through alts and such, it may not be possible to control.