I doubt that it will be common. Influence looks like it has a wide range of uses. It is not just for feuds. It may be common for companies that are just used for very limited things though. (as you have described)These are alts that were going to be unaffiliated before the suggestion. They need influence for which particular reason? They aren't planning on feuding anyone.I doubt that will work well. You will probably lose your pool of Influence when you disband.That would be my expectation as well, the (permanent?) loss of all Influence the company earned to that point.That is a fair point. I am not sure about everything that Influence will be needed for. Maybe not at all for those types of companies.
It would be a shame if it were that easy to avoid feuds.
I expect it to be a common thing even among proper companies. Got a company of gatherers that gets feuded? Only common sense to disband then reform as you have no chance of fighting.
The reason I believe it will be common is it comes down to a choice of
a) Get slaughtered everytime I leave my settlement for a week (or whatever the duration of a feud is though I cannot see it being shorter)
or
b) disband and lose influence but at least we can play for the next seven days
b
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I pointed out above if they are in a company and are feuded then they disband the company voiding the feud and wasting the influence spent on it then immediately form a new company.That's a good point, if it's alts that are forming a company just to avoid being targeted as unaffiated.
I suppose one obvious counter for GW is: If company A is feuding company B, and company B disbands, then company A has 'won' the feud and all of the Influence spent on that feud is restored.
Another counter is that there can be timers for disbanding or costs for forming a company. Not to mention the characters might have to go back to the sponsoring settlement.
As I have pointed out griefers will use the feud as a tool of choice just as they use war decs for griefing industrial corps in Eve. One of the things that they seek to do in Eve and see as a win is cause a corporation to disband. You wish to reward them for doing it by refunding the influence so they can move on to the next gatherer company?
As to timers for disbanding you also have to put timers on people leaving a company as well in that case otherwise its just case of 99% leave and the company leader waits for the timer to expire while logged off.
Cost to form a company? Coin is easy to come by. Can't charge influence because individual characters have none of their own. Can't charge reputation because no one can gain reputation until they are in a company.
The suggestion basically causes a huge amount of knock on problems while not actually solving the problem it was meant to address which is that of unaffiliated alts.
It does if all of the tricksey ways that are used in EVE are possible in PfO. If they are not, then TBD.
It is no big deal anyway. Just a stray thought. I would be against it myself if it caused a big cascade of extra side mechanics to make it work.
As I pointed out above if they are in a company and are feuded then they disband the company voiding the feud and wasting the influence spent on it then immediately form a new company.That's a good point, if it's alts that are forming a company just to avoid being targeted as unaffiated.
I suppose one obvious counter for GW is: If company A is feuding company B, and company B disbands, then company A has 'won' the feud and all of the Influence spent on that feud is restored.
Another counter is that there can be timers for disbanding or costs for forming a company. Not to mention the characters might have to go back to the sponsoring settlement.
As I have pointed out griefers will use the feud as a tool of choice just as they use war decs for griefing industrial corps in Eve. One of the things that they seek to do in Eve and see as a win is cause a corporation to disband. You wish to reward them for doing it by refunding the influence so they can move on to the next gatherer company?
As to timers for disbanding you also have to put timers on people leaving a company as well in that case otherwise its just case of 99% leave and the company leader waits for the timer to expire while logged off.
Cost to form a company? Coin is easy to come by. Can't charge influence because individual characters have none of their own. Can't charge reputation because no one can gain reputation until they are in a company.
The suggestion basically causes a huge amount of knock on problems while not actually solving the problem it was meant to address which is that of unaffiliated alts.
It does if all of the tricksey ways that are used in EVE are possible in PfO. If they are not, then TBD.
It is no big deal anyway. Just a stray thought. I would be against it myself if it caused a big cascade of extra side mechanics to make it work.
As a general rule of thumb (and this applies to real life as well as games)
The more rules you introduce the more loopholes you introduce (see the tax code for a prime example)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unaffiliated alts don't care about passive reputation gain, reputation gain or reputation at all. Their purpose is to shield the characters that do care about reputation from actions that will cost reputation.
They don't care about alignment, alignment shifts or being Chaotuc Evil. They are not looking for advantages of alignment, nor do they care what the settlement alignment is. This is why they are unaffiliated.
Unaffiliated alts can be placed in ad hoc companies / groups, giving them all of the coordination needs and joined agency for unified hostility, and not be traceable to their true companies.
Unaffiliated don't care about gear, or even loss in combat. They are used to disrupt, not to conquer unless in large numbers or against very weak opponents.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I have pointed out griefers will use the feud as a tool of choice just as they use war decs for griefing industrial corps in Eve. One of the things that they seek to do in Eve and see as a win is cause a corporation to disband. You wish to reward them for doing it by refunding the influence so they can move on to the next gatherer company?
I don't see it as a reward - if an attacked company can just disband to deny the attacker a target, that seems to be a major loss of Influence for nothing. Which is why I'd restore it; the disbanded company wasn't worth the lost of influence.
As to timers for disbanding you also have to put timers on people leaving a company as well in that case otherwise its just case of 99% leave and the company leader waits for the timer to expire while logged off.
Agreed. People trying to drop from a company to avoid consequences or attacks should remain attackable for some time.
Cost to form a company? Coin is easy to come by. Can't charge influence because individual characters have none of their own. Can't charge reputation because no one can gain reputation until they are in a company.
Agreed. Trying to limit rapid churning of companies is probably not doable on the formation side.
The suggestion basically causes a huge amount of knock on problems while not actually solving the problem it was meant to address which is that of unaffiliated alts.
I'm not sure I agree. I think you pointed out an issue - the disbanding of temporary companies to duck feuds - that GW will have to account for in any case.
@Urman those companies that are likely to disband are the same as the ones that do so in Eve. That is to say those which either lack the ability or the will to fight back. Make them attackable for a time after leaving and they just won't log on for that time.
Question is which do you care about more stopping people disbanding after being legitimately feuded or making life easy for griefer companies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unaffiliated alts don't care about passive reputation gain, reputation gain or reputation at all. Their purpose is to shield the characters that do care about reputation from actions that will cost reputation.
They don't care about alignment, alignment shifts or being Chaotuc Evil. They are not looking for advantages of alignment, nor do they care what the settlement alignment is. This is why they are unaffiliated.
Unaffiliated alts can be placed in ad hoc companies / groups, giving them all of the coordination needs and joined agency for unified hostility, and not be traceable to their true companies.
Unaffiliated don't care about gear, or even loss in combat. They are used to disrupt, not to conquer unless in large numbers or against very weak opponents.
If all of your assumptions pan out, then that is true. There was talk about taking time to fix these unaffiliated toons when they were not active in their preferred use. If they don't care and go as far as possible down the funnel, then I hope that they are so useless that it isn't worth the time to worry about.
It is amusing that you suggest that those that want coded mechanics to govern their lands use feuds and SADs, etc... while you espouse circumventing consequence with unaffiliated ALTs. Very telling, whether you can see it in yourself, or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason I believe it will be common is it comes down to a choice of
a) Get slaughtered everytime I leave my settlement for a week (or whatever the duration of a feud is though I cannot see it being shorter)
or
b) disband and lose influence but at least we can play for the next seven days
or c) A PvP oriented company from your settlement declares a feud on the aggressor. So the aggressor now gets to fight harvesters *and* the PvP company, or they need to walk away from their expended feud cost.
or d) A independent low-rep company happens to show up and attack the raiders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason I believe it will be common is it comes down to a choice of
a) Get slaughtered everytime I leave my settlement for a week (or whatever the duration of a feud is though I cannot see it being shorter)
or
b) disband and lose influence but at least we can play for the next seven days
or c) A PvP oriented company from your settlement declares a feud on the aggressor. So the aggressor now gets to fight harvesters *and* the PvP company, or they need to walk away from their expended feud cost.
or d) A independent low-rep company happens to show up and attack the raiders.
C & D are indeed both possible. They are also possible in Eve but very few corporations make use of them and I see no reason currently to believe it will be different in PfO. I would still expect the most common response to be b). Not something we can prove one way or the other till the game goes live though
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a character has below -2500 reputation, he can't safely enter most NPC or starter settlements. Can he even join an ad hoc company? Who's sponsoring the company?
edit to add: I'll assume that some NPC settlements will be less picky, like maybe Thornkeep. Will they charge more for company formation (though as Steelwing points out, cost might not be an big deal)?
When a party with some very low rep members enters an area protected by NPCs, is the entire party flagged based on the rep of the lowest member?
If a character has below -2500 reputation, he can't safely enter most NPC or starter settlements. Can he even join an ad hoc company? Who's sponsoring the company?
Companies do not need to be sponsored
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a character has below -2500 reputation, he can't safely enter most NPC or starter settlements. Can he even join an ad hoc company? Who's sponsoring the company?Companies do not need to be sponsored
Not so far, as of last word. Every character must be a member of a settlement. Not all settlements are player controlled.
Conflict of interest anyone, and settlement pressure for your juicy Influence?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Urman
In addition as I pointed out earlier in the thread our unaffiliated alts (my groups at least) are not necessarily going to be that low rep in any case. While there rep is a resource we are more than happy to spend we will only spend it when other means fail to protect our lands and I expect that as word spreads that trespass on our lands gets you killed more often than not that their rep will recover quite nicely.
Unaffiliated alts used in an offensive capacity are another matter but then I don't see a need for those currently.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is amusing that you suggest that those that want coded mechanics to govern their lands use feuds and SADs, etc... while you espouse circumventing consequence with unaffiliated ALTs. Very telling, whether you can see it in yourself, or not.
What you're not seeing is that these flaws are being pointed to, or their possibility is being openly revealed and discussed.
The best way to avoid the use of alts in this manner is to allow for and encourage meaningful PvP.
I would rather use my main, trained and equipped for PvP to do my PvP. I'm hopeful that between feuds, raids, SADs and faction PvP I will be kept very busy. In the end I think we will be better off for it.
Unaffiliated alts are actually more useful for a settlement than a company. Holding Companies are more useful for all levels of player groupings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is amusing that you suggest that those that want coded mechanics to govern their lands use feuds and SADs, etc... while you espouse circumventing consequence with unaffiliated ALTs. Very telling, whether you can see it in yourself, or not.What you're not seeing is that these flaws are being pointed to, or their possibility is being openly revealed and discussed.
The best way to avoid the use of alts in this manner is to allow for and encourage meaningful PvP.
I would rather use my main, trained and equipped for PvP to do my PvP. I'm hopeful that between feuds, raids, SADs and faction PvP I will be kept very busy. In the end I think we will be better off for it.
Unaffiliated alts are actually more useful for a settlement than a company. Holding Companies are more useful for all levels of player groupings.
Alright. To be fair, this sounds more like the Bluddwolf that I have grown to respect. My apologies if you feel even "sorta" this way.
I don't think that it would be as good a game if it became a permanent default behavior to solve all problems and circumvent all challenges with unaffiliated ALTS.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Steelwing My question about the -2500 rep and joining an ad hoc company was in response to Bludd's assertion:
Unaffiliated alts don't care about passive reputation gain, reputation gain or reputation at all. Their purpose is to shield the characters that do care about reputation from actions that will cost reputation.
...
Unaffiliated alts can be placed in ad hoc companies / groups, giving them all of the coordination needs and joined agency for unified hostility, and not be traceable to their true companies.
I was mostly questioning if anyone will be able to be really that cavalier about rep, or will really low rep start hampering a character's ability to join a company. Perhaps a higher rep individual creates the company and allows the low rep people to join. (Which raises the question, will that interaction wear down the recruiters Rep, if he allows people to join the company with Rep lower than his settlement's floor?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is amusing that you suggest that those that want coded mechanics to govern their lands use feuds and SADs, etc... while you espouse circumventing consequence with unaffiliated ALTs. Very telling, whether you can see it in yourself, or not.What you're not seeing is that these flaws are being pointed to, or their possibility is being openly revealed and discussed.
The best way to avoid the use of alts in this manner is to allow for and encourage meaningful PvP.
I would rather use my main, trained and equipped for PvP to do my PvP. I'm hopeful that between feuds, raids, SADs and faction PvP I will be kept very busy. In the end I think we will be better off for it.
Unaffiliated alts are actually more useful for a settlement than a company. Holding Companies are more useful for all levels of player groupings.
Alright. To be fair, this sounds more like the Bluddwolf that I have grown to respect. My apologies if you feel even "sorta" this way.
I don't think that it would be as good a game if it became a permanent default behavior to solve all problems and circumvent all challenges with unaffiliated ALTS.
While I won't speak for other groups for us the only reason to use the alts is because the system as described does not allow us to do something we have legitimate reason to want to do as even Dancey has acknowledged.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In EVE, Corporations exist in a weird quasi state between persistent impact and non-persistent impact.
They have some persistency like corporate hangers full of stuff and some Player Owned Station roles, but they don't have a defined economic role outside of Alliances. Corporations that focus on harvesting or trucking have no meaningful shared persistent infrastructure.
Disbanding or leaving the game temporarily when subjected to a war declaration is a viable tactic for many of these entities.
In Pathfinder Online, the current plan is for Companies to run the Outposts and Points of Interest so simply disbanding, or logging off will have a real impact on the economy. Players will be loath to surrender their hard-won infrastructure in the face of a feud and whatever Settlements they're connected with are very unlikely to accept that outcome.
Not all companies will have a persistent economic infrastructure role of course but many will.
In EVE, Corporations exist in a weird quasi state between persistent impact and non-persistent impact.
They have some persistency like corporate hangers full of stuff and some Player Owned Station roles, but they don't have a defined economic role outside of Alliances. Corporations that focus on harvesting or trucking have no meaningful shared persistent infrastructure.
Disbanding or leaving the game temporarily when subjected to a war declaration is a viable tactic for many of these entities.
In Pathfinder Online, the current plan is for Companies to run the Outposts and Points of Interest so simply disbanding, or logging off will have a real impact on the economy. Players will be loath to surrender their hard-won infrastructure in the face of a feud and whatever Settlements they're connected with are very unlikely to accept that outcome.
Not all companies will have a persistent economic infrastructure role of course but many will.
I would imagine the majority of companies have no infrastructure and that most as in Eve will be small bands of friends numbering between 3 and 8.
I was not suggesting that someone holding a POI or outpost is likely to disband but neither would I expect them to be amongst those unwilling or unable to protect themselves
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I won't speak for other groups for us the only reason to use the alts is because the system as described does not allow us to do something we have legitimate reason to want to do as even Dancey has acknowledged.
It is amusing that you suggest that those that want coded mechanics to govern their lands use feuds and SADs, etc... while you espouse circumventing consequence with unaffiliated ALTs. Very telling, whether you can see it in yourself, or not.What you're not seeing is that these flaws are being pointed to, or their possibility is being openly revealed and discussed.
The best way to avoid the use of alts in this manner is to allow for and encourage meaningful PvP.
I would rather use my main, trained and equipped for PvP to do my PvP. I'm hopeful that between feuds, raids, SADs and faction PvP I will be kept very busy. In the end I think we will be better off for it.
Unaffiliated alts are actually more useful for a settlement than a company. Holding Companies are more useful for all levels of player groupings.
Alright. To be fair, this sounds more like the Bluddwolf that I have grown to respect. My apologies if you feel even "sorta" this way.
I don't think that it would be as good a game if it became a permanent default behavior to solve all problems and circumvent all challenges with unaffiliated ALTS.
I acknowledged that with the word "permanent". If it is part of the deal for a while, and there is no way around it, but it gets addressed later so that it is no longer needed or not as useful/cost effective as affiliated toon interaction; it is endurable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In EVE, Corporations exist in a weird quasi state between persistent impact and non-persistent impact.
They have some persistency like corporate hangers full of stuff and some Player Owned Station roles, but they don't have a defined economic role outside of Alliances. Corporations that focus on harvesting or trucking have no meaningful shared persistent infrastructure.
Disbanding or leaving the game temporarily when subjected to a war declaration is a viable tactic for many of these entities.
In Pathfinder Online, the current plan is for Companies to run the Outposts and Points of Interest so simply disbanding, or logging off will have a real impact on the economy. Players will be loath to surrender their hard-won infrastructure in the face of a feud and whatever Settlements they're connected with are very unlikely to accept that outcome.
Not all companies will have a persistent economic infrastructure role of course but many will.
Ryan, you are like a conductor, on a roller coaster (if they had one). You explain why something is, build up hope that it won't be that way, and then reveal that the opposite can also be true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would imagine the majority of companies have no infrastructure and that most as in Eve will be small bands of friends numbering between 3 and 8.
Ahh. I am imagining that outside of NPC controlled lands, settlements will be encouraging those bands to perhaps bring in more members. Settlements have a lot of need for infrastructure control - and those companies that can grow and manage an outpost or POI (or be a solid military force) are going to be needed. Little gatherer bands might be better than nothing, but they really need to get bigger.
I would imagine the majority of companies have no infrastructure and that most as in Eve will be small bands of friends numbering between 3 and 8.Ahh. I am imagining that outside of NPC controlled lands, settlements will be encouraging those bands to perhaps bring in more members. Settlements have a lot of need for infrastructure control - and those companies that can grow and manage an outpost or POI (or be a solid military force) are going to be needed. Little gatherer bands might be better than nothing, but they really need to get bigger.
There will be sufficient companies to run POI's and outposts but there will be (opinion) a lot of companies without purely from a numbers viewpoint
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Wouldn't the number of companies that are feuding and settlements at war be significantly less than the number of characters in feud/war groups? If there are 10-50 people per company (average of 30), then the list of feuding companies is about 30x smaller than the list of feuding characters. And the system also has to maintain 30x fewer lists, because it needs one per company, not one per player.
But each character is a member of up to three companies, one settlement, and at least one faction, each of which has to check their hostility list against each other character's. I doubt that settlements or companies can declare war on a faction without being that faction, and neither will factions grant hostility towards companies or settlements, which simplifies slightly, but there's still four lists that have to be checked for one of four items, per pair of characters. That scales with N! (or N^N, for a bad implementation) regardless, making any fraction irrelevant very quickly.
Wouldn't the number of companies that are feuding and settlements at war be significantly less than the number of characters in feud/war groups? If there are 10-50 people per company (average of 30), then the list of feuding companies is about 30x smaller than the list of feuding characters. And the system also has to maintain 30x fewer lists, because it needs one per company, not one per player.But each character is a member of up to three companies, one settlement, and at least one faction, each of which has to check their hostility list against each other character's. I doubt that settlements or companies can declare war on a faction without being that faction, and neither will factions grant hostility towards companies or settlements, which simplifies slightly, but there's still four lists that have to be checked for one of four items, per pair of characters. That scales with N! (or N^N, for a bad implementation) regardless, making any fraction irrelevant very quickly.
Eve manages without any appreciable lag that I have ever noticed to allow every character, corporation and alliance have a standing between -10 and + 10 to every other character, corporation and alliance and to color the overview correctly based upon that information. That to me does not seem any less workload than checking whether someone is on a whitelist or redlist when crossing a boundary
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Eve manages without any appreciable lag that I have ever noticed to allow every character, corporation and alliance have a standing between -10 and + 10 to every other character, corporation and alliance and to color the overview correctly based upon that information. That to me does not seem any less workload than checking whether someone is on a whitelist or redlist when crossing a boundaryWouldn't the number of companies that are feuding and settlements at war be significantly less than the number of characters in feud/war groups? If there are 10-50 people per company (average of 30), then the list of feuding companies is about 30x smaller than the list of feuding characters. And the system also has to maintain 30x fewer lists, because it needs one per company, not one per player.But each character is a member of up to three companies, one settlement, and at least one faction, each of which has to check their hostility list against each other character's. I doubt that settlements or companies can declare war on a faction without being that faction, and neither will factions grant hostility towards companies or settlements, which simplifies slightly, but there's still four lists that have to be checked for one of four items, per pair of characters. That scales with N! (or N^N, for a bad implementation) regardless, making any fraction irrelevant very quickly.
That scales with N^2, and can even be entirely offloaded to the client for N cost per client simply by sending the client the information required for the calculation (the player's standings rules, and the character, corp, and alliance affiliation of each character, (unless there is some mechanical effect such that a given action directed at a ship piloted by someone +10 to you has a different result than one directed at a ship piloted by someone -10 to you).
And in any case, I was wrong about the scaling- it's only N^2.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd, sorry, I hadn't fully read Tork's post or yours before I posted; I've been busy this weekend and just wanted to spew out some lines as to the advantages of making it cost DI without slogging through the whole big thread. Yes, I was posting an idea that Tork had already mentioned, just didn't realize he'd already come up with it. :P
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
I think the designers are really focused on the idea that you will want to be a member of a Company and you will want that Company to be managing an outpost or a Point of Interest. In the same way that we want to encourage players to leave NPC Settlements and join PC Settlements I think we'll be encouraging players to engage with Companies that are integrated into the economic system.
There might be a few things for Companies to do outside that system - mercenaries and bounty hunters strike me as obvious examples - but there's no good reason to have a 3 person Company that doesn't manage some resource. Just make an ad hoc party when you want to play together.
I think the designers are really focused on the idea that you will want to be a member of a Company and you will want that Company to be managing an outpost or a Point of Interest. In the same way that we want to encourage players to leave NPC Settlements and join PC Settlements I think we'll be encouraging players to engage with Companies that are integrated into the economic system.
There might be a few things for Companies to do outside that system - mercenaries and bounty hunters strike me as obvious examples - but there's no good reason to have a 3 person Company that doesn't manage some resource. Just make an ad hoc party when you want to play together.
I would think numbers mitigate against it. You have on your full map (the one that it has been intimated that the game will grow into)
Around 220 settlement hexes
Around 2000 POI hexes
Around 4000 outpost spaces
That indicates to me given that many companies will control more than 1 POI that there is going to be nowhere for a 3 man company to control.
220 settlements given the numbers you expect per settlement is 110k to 220k people
which averages out at 18 to 36 characters per company if each one gets to control something. I remain unconvinced the average per company will be as high as 18 when I consider the mmo's I know (including eve outside null sec)
I think that is were outposts come in.I think the designers are really focused on the idea that you will want to be a member of a Company and you will want that Company to be managing an outpost or a Point of Interest. In the same way that we want to encourage players to leave NPC Settlements and join PC Settlements I think we'll be encouraging players to engage with Companies that are integrated into the economic system.
There might be a few things for Companies to do outside that system - mercenaries and bounty hunters strike me as obvious examples - but there's no good reason to have a 3 person Company that doesn't manage some resource. Just make an ad hoc party when you want to play together.
I would think numbers mitigate against it. You have on your full map (the one that it has been intimated that the game will grow into)
Around 220 settlement hexes
Around 2000 POI hexes
Around 4000 outpost spacesThat indicates to me given that many companies will control more than 1 POI that there is going to be nowhere for a 3 man company to control.
220 settlements given the numbers you expect per settlement is 110k to 220k people
which averages out at 18 to 36 characters per company if each one gets to control something. I remain unconvinced the average per company will be as high as 18 when I consider the mmo's I know (including eve outside null sec)
I included outposts
I included outpostsI think that is were outposts come in.I think the designers are really focused on the idea that you will want to be a member of a Company and you will want that Company to be managing an outpost or a Point of Interest. In the same way that we want to encourage players to leave NPC Settlements and join PC Settlements I think we'll be encouraging players to engage with Companies that are integrated into the economic system.
There might be a few things for Companies to do outside that system - mercenaries and bounty hunters strike me as obvious examples - but there's no good reason to have a 3 person Company that doesn't manage some resource. Just make an ad hoc party when you want to play together.
I would think numbers mitigate against it. You have on your full map (the one that it has been intimated that the game will grow into)
Around 220 settlement hexes
Around 2000 POI hexes
Around 4000 outpost spacesThat indicates to me given that many companies will control more than 1 POI that there is going to be nowhere for a 3 man company to control.
220 settlements given the numbers you expect per settlement is 110k to 220k people
which averages out at 18 to 36 characters per company if each one gets to control something. I remain unconvinced the average per company will be as high as 18 when I consider the mmo's I know (including eve outside null sec)
You are right. Did not look at the numbers.
With 6220 places to control and with 110-220k players, that leaves us with a high average (18 to 36). (Just repeating your numbers)
Even if we assume, that settlements takes more people than PoIs, which takes more than outposts, I think there might be a problem.
Could even look at the numbers on a smaller scale.
We know that settlements are supposed to host 500 to 1000 players.
With 6 hexes around these and the outposts belonging to these, we are...
I dont think its actually a problem because frankly a lot of companies will not want the hassle of running anything. I was merely unconvinced by Danceys assertion
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought the assertion was more along the lines of: what can a 3-person company do?
Well, (strictly in theory, maybe) you might hold an outpost, and depend on NPC guards and a strong company at the POI to protect you. But that 3-man company is just to weak to withstand a feuding raider; someone will have to counter-feud to defend them.
As you point out, there will be plenty of companies to hold POIs; most settlements won't leave that to a half hand of people. Which reinforces the point I read from his statement: 3-person companies are weak and can't do a heck of a lot. If you want to play with your two buddies, join a settlement, join a real company that will collect the influence you gather, and form an ad hoc party of 3 when you want to mine resource nodes.
I thought the assertion was more along the lines of: what can a 3-person company do?
Well, (strictly in theory, maybe) you might hold an outpost, and depend on NPC guards and a strong company at the POI to protect you. But that 3-man company is just to weak to withstand a feuding raider; someone will have to counter-feud to defend them.
As you point out, there will be plenty of companies to hold POIs; most settlements won't leave that to a half hand of people. Which reinforces the point I read from his statement: 3-person companies are weak and can't do a heck of a lot. If you want to play with your two buddies, join a settlement, join a real company that will collect the influence you gather, and form an ad hoc party of 3 when you want to mine resource nodes.
Reread the quote particularly
"There might be a few things for Companies to do outside that system - mercenaries and bounty hunters strike me as obvious examples - but there's no good reason to have a 3 person Company that doesn't manage some resource"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the designers are really focused on the idea that you will want to be a member of a Company and you will want that Company to be managing an outpost or a Point of Interest. In the same way that we want to encourage players to leave NPC Settlements and join PC Settlements I think we'll be encouraging players to engage with Companies that are integrated into the economic system.
There might be a few things for Companies to do outside that system - mercenaries and bounty hunters strike me as obvious examples - but there's no good reason to have a 3 person Company that doesn't manage some resource. Just make an ad hoc party when you want to play together.
I think the key to this assumption is that Companies don't offer any benefits unless they exist to maintain some piece of infrastructure. My understanding of the current state of things is that Companies do, in fact, offer additional benefits beyond economic. Influence to spend on feuds, for example, seems like an obvious benefit. I suspect there will be others.
I guess what I'm getting at is assuming people won't make throw-away companies because they lack a "good reason" is a foolish assumption if throw-away companies have the ability to be disruptive in unwelcome ways.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
The benefit of a Company outside the economic integration and being a mercenary/bounty hunting outfit is having a persistent in-game identity for your adventuring group because that's cool and thematic. Maybe it helps your adventuring group manage its supplies and it's money by having some pooling of resources systems.
My personal expectation is that most players won't pay much attention to the Company system unless they're involved with infrastructure management. Ad hoc groups and Settlemtents will give most players all the social graph management they need or want.
What would be the advantage or exploit of a throw-away mini Company?
About all I can see is as an alternate means to attack a desired target
without dealing with Alignment repurcussions and without involving a real Settlement feud.
Or if they want to escalate to that level is response, they have to pay for doing so.
They still know who you are (unless you Disguise) so CAN retaliate against your other Companies/Settlement,
and presumably Companies and Settlements will have some motivation to keep their members somewhat under control in this regard.
The Disguise thing for purpose of doing a 'hit' while not suffering Alignment repurcussions seems about the only real exploit.
...???
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why feud if you're not a mercenary company? Or a well regulated militia?
Why feud? Because feuds exist to prevent reputation loss when agressing non-consensual PvP. This benefit is balanced by an associated cost to the Company. I think it's a great system, but that doesn't mean it's free from potential abuse. As usual, the devil is in the details, which we don't have. I just want to be sure that, when fleshing out those details, potentially naive assumptions (such as a lack of small Companies) don't lead to undesirable results.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why feud if you're not a mercenary company? Or a well regulated militia?
3 players are not going to threaten anyone with a feud and they're not going to be very useful mercenaries.
Bandit companies such as my own would use a feud to allow us to raid the caravans of a selected company without risk of losing reputation.
I'm also hoping that the use successful use of feuds and making successful raids will earn merit badges, gain reputation and influence and become a self perpetuating activity.
Unless caravans are treated like outposts and there is no reputation loss for raiding them... Nudge, nudge, wink, wink,,,,
On the supposition that a 3 man company would not make an effective mercenary group, I beg to differ. I have seen a 3 man corporation cripple a 150+ member alliance in EvE. All they did was kill a couple of ships (an Orca being one if them) in the first hour of the war dec and the alliance was put under lock down orders by the alliance leadership.
Never under estimate the cowardice of Care Bears when confronted with skilled and aggressive opponents.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why feud if you're not a mercenary company? Or a well regulated militia?
3 players are not going to threaten anyone with a feud and they're not going to be very useful mercenaries.
I disagree as well, I have done it. A couple skilled players can do alot of damage to a large group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for little companies of a handful of players, that is definitely the trend in previous MMOs. So maybe that is why we think that it will be as common here as it was there. It remains to be seen whether players that want a little bit of their own identity down to the point of a 1 - 3 person company, will go as normally as it has in the past. I think that it will be a hard trend to break. At least until it becomes obvious that there are real valuable reasons to break those old habits and real drawbacks not to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that scale problem already exists whenever the system has to determine if two players are hostile to each other because they are members of companies which are feuding.
True, and that occurs whenever two players encounter each other, but it's (I think) significantly lower magnitude.
Each Company's list of Feud-targets is constrained to be small, which is (part of the reason) why there's a cost. There won't be a list of hundreds or thousands of Companies to check. Same is true for Settlements and War.