Questions and dilemmas: Understanding settlements and their affect on you as a player


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

SO:
Clerics of Good Deities can not use/train Good Aligned Abilities if they are members of TN Settlements,
Paladins in LN Settlements can use/train Lawful but not Good Abilities, Paladins in NG Settlements can use/train Good but not Lawful Abilities,
and Paladins in LG Settlements can use/train Good AND Lawful Abilities?*
LG/LN/NG don't really seem equivalent there, Paladins clearly benefit from joining a LG Settlement by that approach...
And that certainly sounds reasonable and coherent... I just wasn't aware any of that was the intended dynamic until now.

* Assuming they have them, normal tabletop Paladins don't really get unique Law focused abilities despite needing to remain LG themselves.
Still, a character could have Good-Aligned Paladin or Cleric abilities AND Law-Aligned Cleric abilities, and such a dynamic w/ LG Settlements would seem to apply.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

SO:

Clerics of Good Deities can not use/train Good Aligned Abilities if they are members of TN Settlements,
Paladins in LN Settlements can use/train Lawful but not Good Abilities, Paladins in NG Settlements can use/train Good but not Lawful Abilities,
and Paladins in LG Settlements can use/train Good AND Lawful Abilities?*
LG/LN/NG don't really seem equivalent there, Paladins clearly benefit from joining a LG Settlement by that approach...
And that certainly sounds reasonable and coherent... I just wasn't aware any of that was the intended dynamic until now.

* Assuming they have them, normal tabletop Paladins don't really get unique Law focused abilities despite needing to remain LG themselves.
Still, it is plausible to mix Paladin abilities with Law-Aligned Cleric abilities, and such a dynamic would seem to apply.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
A NG, LN and LG Settlement are all roughly equivalent if the question is "what is the best Settlement alignment for my character that wants to become a Paladin"

I'm shifting paradigms myself right now.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I get the feeling that WE have the impression that training structures will be much more specific than they actually will be.

This might actually be very true. If a Paladin can get his lawful training from one settlement and his good from another, as opposed to needing a Lawful Good settlement, that would have a major impact on player choices.


Bluddwolf wrote:
[If a Paladin can get his lawful training from one settlement and his good from another, as opposed to needing a Lawful Good settlement, that would have a major impact on player choices.

And Settlement alliances/partnerships/nations.

But Dancey clearly seemed to say that training/re-slotting and being able to USE an ability are in the same boat re: Settlement alignment,
so training at a differently aligned settlement wouldn't really have any relevance as far as Aligned abilities go.
If Training in other Settlements is possible, then as far as Aligned abilities go, they would need to be Settlements of the same Alignment (axis).

Perhaps if they have a higher DI due to being Lawful they might offer more training in non-Aligned (/same Alignment axis) abilities.


I guess we can expect the lowest tiers of Cleric and Paladin abilities to not have Aligned abilities,
if those characters are just supposed to start out in Companies and possibly Training at NPC Towns?

I wonder if/how Reputation-keyed Abilities will show up, possibly in 'Social/Metagame'-related Abilities
like Settlement management, Diplomacy, etc, i.e outside the scope of tabletop Class-derived roles?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will wait until we get more info to be positive, but I don't think that you guys are reading that the same way that I am.

CEO, Goblinworks

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At some point you'll need to find a trainer with the Paladin role skills and a Settlement with the paladin role support buildings. There is not, so far as I am aware, a plan to restrict those buildings or those trainers to Settlements that are LG. In this unique corner case (Paladin) I could be wrong but I believe that is the only role in the tabletop game with a fixed 2-axis alignment requirement so it would be the only such exception if one were planned.

What is more likely is that the Settlement members will look askance a the requests of their LG paladin wanna-be brethren to allocate limited high-level facilities on support for a very exotic and fairly limited Role when there are other mutually exclusive purposes with a wider and likely more useful remit to which those facility slots could be put.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

There are some cool things that characters can get based on their alignment but there is nothing cool that the Settlement gets based on its alignment.

A NG, LN and LG Settlement are all roughly equivalent if the question is "what is the best Settlement alignment for my character that wants to become a Paladin"

The settlement has the training buildings correct? And the settlement can only have certain buildings based on its alignment correct? Do buildings in a settlement follow the one step rule?

I understand where you were going with the statement, but characters will choose settlements based on the cool things the settlement has to offer which are based on its alignment.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
We did not sit down and say "There are 9 alignments. what will be the cool thing each alignment gets?"

That statement confuses me a bit... You guys did sit down and decide "There are 9 alignments. What will be the best way to make this alignment suck?"

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
What is more likely is that the Settlement members will look askance a the requests of their LG paladin wanna-be brethren to allocate limited high-level facilities on support for a very exotic and fairly limited Role when there are other mutually exclusive purposes with a wider and likely more useful remit to which those facility slots could be put.

At the same time, if it is such and skill training can be "sold". That might be a financial boon to the few settlements who did make the sacrifice...of course, assuming the above were true and that would be at the cost of other more broad opportunities.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
The design does not consider an alignment as a reason to have a Settlement. It considers a group of characters triangulating on the alignment they can share to have a Settlement. There's nothing in the design that tries to tie some meaningful benefit to a Settlement alignment.

This is something I think you guys should look at doing. It would help the corner case alignments.

Goblin Squad Member

Right now there are three or four settlements planned and even if paladin released with EE only one might support them... eventually. Certain settlements (for a while) might be known as the only ones that field really advanced, scary, paladins or assassins etc. in warfare.

I think the map will look like a bull's eye for a few years in that respect. A circle at the center of civilization where towns support everything possible just to get it into the game. Then a band of newer settlements around it nearly empty of niche support, focusing on the needs of broad roles of newer players (and niche players join at the established core institutions). Then around that a second band of niche support crops up as so many players have entered the game there's a market for the developing settlements to divvy up niche training and role buildings. Then an empty band of new towns then a third band of niche support etc.

At least until core kingdoms start crumbling and rippling the most developed skills all across the map.

A DRAMATIC THOUGHT

If training and support buildings are distinct, you might even end up with that trope where there is only one place in all the land (that spent their DI) where one can train to become the highest level paladin or assassin.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

A DRAMATIC THOUGHT

If training and support buildings are distinct, you might even end up with that trope where there is only one place in all the land (that spent their DI) where one can train to become the highest level paladin or assassin.

+1

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
What is more likely is that the Settlement members will look askance a the requests of their LG paladin wanna-be brethren to allocate limited high-level facilities on support for a very exotic and fairly limited Role when there are other mutually exclusive purposes with a wider and likely more useful remit to which those facility slots could be put.
At the same time, if it is such and skill training can be "sold". That might be a financial boon to the few settlements who did make the sacrifice...of course, assuming the above were true and that would be at the cost of other more broad opportunities.

There is an alternative to skill training being sold, I believe. Instead, a settlement with specialized buildings has alliances with other settlements, and some of its citizens go out in the world as individuals or as companies.

So if settlement Avalon trains paladins, its neighboring settlement Bluefield could have an alliance with Avalon. The paladins in Bluefield are officially citizens of Avalon, but are effectively members of the Bluefield (this does have an expectation of solid trust). By having an official alliance, I'd expect the paladins could/would see characters hostile to Bluefield as Hostile to them as well.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
What is more likely is that the Settlement members will look askance a the requests of their LG paladin wanna-be brethren to allocate limited high-level facilities on support for a very exotic and fairly limited Role when there are other mutually exclusive purposes with a wider and likely more useful remit to which those facility slots could be put.
At the same time, if it is such and skill training can be "sold". That might be a financial boon to the few settlements who did make the sacrifice...of course, assuming the above were true and that would be at the cost of other more broad opportunities.

There is an alternative to skill training being sold, I believe. Instead, a settlement with specialized buildings has alliances with other settlements, and some of its citizens go out in the world as individuals or as companies.

So if settlement Avalon trains paladins, its neighboring settlement Bluefield could have an alliance with Avalon. The paladins in Bluefield are officially citizens of Avalon, but are effectively members of the Bluefield (this does have an expectation of solid trust). By having an official alliance, I'd expect the paladins could/would see characters hostile to Bluefield as Hostile to them as well.

That almost sounds like a "nation" or "kingdom" type of agreement and a very easy way to encourage in-game rather than meta agreements. Or at least a good way to do it. Your idea is not bad, but it does suggest that the very highest level of trainable or supportable skills or abilities (possibly) NOT be dependent on your actual "home" settlement/nation. That seems contrary to what they have described.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
There is an alternative to skill training being sold, I believe. Instead, a settlement with specialized buildings has alliances with other settlements...

I think the plan is to require them to be in the same Nation, not just Allies.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon, it depends. If Avalon and Bluefield are allied, but do not belong to the same nation, one expects that there would still be some benefit to having such an alliance, or no one would ever spend the DI on it.

From what I've read - and Ryan's said a couple of times that parties aren't limited to a one-step rule (so parties aren't limited to members of one settlement) - a contingent from Avalon could work out of Bluefield. They wouldn't be able to hold a POI, perhaps, but as allies they might count among the Bluefeldian host. We don't really know much about alliances - this is supposition on my part, of course.

edit to add: regarding alliances. There has to be a way for a mercenary troop to have ties with the settlement or company that is its employer. I would think at a minimum, actors hostile to the employer would also appear as hostiles to the guard. I've assumed some form of alliance would enable this linkage; there could be any mix of alignment step or rep step restrictions on such an alliance.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The idea that I am getting from these hints and info drops is a little different from what seems to be how some are seeing them. I fully believe that I still do not grasp everything about their current plans, but here is what I think that I see (even if parts are more assumption than reality)

Training Structures:

1. They will offer a very broad selection of common and above average skills that will be "ok" for a range of roles. (melee, arcane, rogue, religious, etc...) There will even be some overlap of skills between those.

2. They will (generally) not be very alignment specific skills, except that they will not be available if they are more than one step beyond the settlement's alignment, if the skills are alignment restrictive.

3. Within these types of structures, at some level of advancement, settlements will have to choose which of the more specific higher level skills (or skill sets) they want available and will have limited "slots" to offer them. You may choose to offer high level (or very exotic)Paladin skills (or skill sets) at a cost of more exotic high level warrior skills (or skill sets).

4. Settlements will have to keep these higher level skills (or skill sets) "enabled", for the trained character to be able to use them. There is a tough choice in what upper training that each building supports.

The only way that this would make sense would be if the effects and limitations scaled and had some connection to what "High level skills" are, based on the settlement's current maximum potential.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

A DRAMATIC THOUGHT

If training and support buildings are distinct, you might even end up with that trope where there is only one place in all the land (that spent their DI) where one can train to become the highest level paladin or assassin.

That actually sounds like a feature, not a bug. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
@Nihimon, it depends. If Avalon and Bluefield are allied, but do not belong to the same nation, one expects that there would still be some benefit to having such an alliance, or no one would ever spend the DI on it.

My understanding so far is that Training is intended to be tied to your current Settlement or Nation. I'm not aware of any plans to extend that to Alliances. I believe Alliances are primarily to support mutual defense, making it less costly for Allies to "buy in" to a War.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon ok, I think we might be talking past each other. In my example above, the paladins' current settlement is Avalon. They work in/from Bluefield, possibly in ad hoc parties with citizens of Bluefield. Their primary (meta-game) loyalty may be to Bluefield, though their home settlement for purposes of training, rep requirement, and alignment is Avalon. I think (based on what we have been told) that this would be possible with or without an alliance between Avalon and Bluefield. What the alliance might bring to the mix is that Avalon paladins could then react to hostilities targeted against Bluefield. (Just as if they were mercenaries in Bluefield's employ)

edit/add: "Avalon paladins" might/could be found in many settlements as mercenary or free companies - they would have to maintain their rep and alignment of their home settlement, of course, and it might be difficult for NBSI settlements to host them without an alliance.

Goblin Squad Member

There is nothing official that I have seen to making it less costly for an ally to buy in to a war.

If there is, please link it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Re-reading Nihimon, he said I believe Alliances are primarily to support mutual defense, making it less costly for Allies to "buy in" to a War. That sort of implies that it's his opinion, not official, I think.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

There is nothing official that I have seen to making it less costly for an ally to buy in to a war.

If there is, please link it.

I tried to make it clear that this was my personal belief, and not necessarily backed up by an official statement.

Nihimon wrote:
I believe Alliances are primarily to support mutual defense, making it less costly for Allies to "buy in" to a War.

That said, there are certainly hints:

All companies may use influence to forge alliances with other companies or settlements, usually to establish trade arrangements or provide mutual security.

If "provide mutual security" means "pay the same cost to join a War/Feud as an unallied Company", then it doesn't make much sense to me.

Goblin Squad Member

For defensive purposes, does anyone think it would be bad if declaring war on someone includes their formal allies? Or would it be better to just "hope" that allies honor that alliance?

Edit for clarity: Should my "War Time Allies" have a free-of-cost opt-in if someone declares war on me?

Goblin Squad Member

I understand what you said Nihimon.

I just wanted to see it if they officially stated it.

It makes perfect sense if the costs are still the same. My guess is that an official alliance forces the ally to declare war or break the alliance. And that would be only if you chose a defensive pact in the alliance.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
For defensive purposes, does anyone think it would be bad if declaring war on someone includes their formal allies? Or would it be better to just "hope" that allies honor that alliance?

If the alliance is not part of a nation, but has a formal link in game:

1. That needs to be public knowledge (no secret alliances)

2. Waging war on one is waging war on all.

3. The cost, if different for settlement, nation, alliance should be factored in.

4. The allied settlements have the choice to not opt into the war, but that severs their formal alliance.

5. Failure to honor an alliance is similar to breaching a contract.

Meta game alliances should have to wage war on a separate basis.

The type of alliance should also make a difference.

Trade: Free Trade; Non Aggression

Security: Non Aggression; Mutual Defense

Full: Non Aggression; Mutual Defense; Mutual Enemy


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a quick note I would say this depends on the alliance. If the alliance is a kingdom style alliance it does not really seem logical that you in a kingdom consisting of settlements Brighthaven and Phaeros for instance that you can declare war individually on either Brighthaven or Phaeros. I would suspect the war would have to be declared against the kingdom

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it would be better to hope that the allies honor the agreement. It allows betrayal; an automatic state of war doesn't.

I think your war time allies should have either a free or reduced cost opt-in. There might be differing levels of alliances based on the amount of DI or Influence that was obligated when the alliance was formalized.

Oh, and refusing to honor a defensive agreement might/could result in that obligated DI being forfeit and lost/spent, rather than being returned at the end of the obligation.

Goblin Squad Member

All those conditions are pretty much what I assumed, except I was including it for company level and just independent settlements that are in system recognized alliances (as opposed to meta) as an incentive and deterrent.

There is a bit of complication that I can see down at company level. You don't want feuds to be too deterred because there are many companies in a settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
There is a bit of complication that I can see down at company level. You don't want feuds to be too deterred because there are many companies in a settlement.
Agreed - feuds should sort of preclude an automatic pile-on by every other member of the settlement. However, companies with an existing, formal company-level alliance might/could be able to pile-in at no- or reduced- feud cost, at least defensively.

You should get something for and have an incentive to spend your Influence and/or DI. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

(I have a bad habit of posting and then deleting posts. Sometimes people quote me in the few minutes my post exists ^^^ )

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
(I have a bad habit of posting and then deleting posts. Sometimes people quote me in the few minutes my post exists ^^^ )

I have a similar problem. The Preview button is right there, but for some reason I insist on clicking Submit Post and then editing...


What Dancey wrote in the other NRDS thread seems to lend a little more depth/context to the Settlement-tied Ability Usage discussed here, specifically addressing the topic of being 'Settlement-less' after being kicked/etc:

Quote:

At character creation, you're assigned to an NPC Settlement.

If you get accepted by a PC Settlement you can change to that PC Settlement.
You can leave a PC Settlement and join an NPC Settlement based on ... factors.
You can switch PC Settlements if a different PC Settlement offers you membership and you accept.
If you get kicked out of a PC Settlement, or a PC Settlement gets destroyed, you get assigned to an NPC Settlement based on ... factors.
So how does a character avoid being either a member of a PC or an NPC Settlement?

All the Alignment extremes* should be able to have some representation in some NPC Settlement, so all characters should be able to use their Aligned abilities if they choose to, it is just their OWN choice of joining uncompatable-Alignment Settlements which may impose a restriction on usage/training of such abilities.

* I don't believe any Neutral NPC Settlement has ever been mentioned yet... that seems a good idea for Druids and Clerics of Neutral Deities (TN only?) to have such an option for Aligned NPC Settlement compatable with Neutral Aligned abilities. Tabletop actually does not really provide Neutral-specific abilities, but due to the structural design of the game re: Settlement Alignment and so on, I feel like TN-specific Abilities (and Settlement improvements/etc) would be a good idea.

FYI, the other "2 Axis Associated" Class in Tabletop would be the Anti-Paladin, who is the Chaotic Evil counter-part to the Paladin.


Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
For defensive purposes, does anyone think it would be bad if declaring war on someone includes their formal allies? Or would it be better to just "hope" that allies honor that alliance?

If the alliance is not part of a nation, but has a formal link in game:

1. That needs to be public knowledge (no secret alliances)
2. Waging war on one is waging war on all.
3. The cost, if different for settlement, nation, alliance should be factored in.
4. The allied settlements have the choice to not opt into the war, but that severs their formal alliance.
5. Failure to honor an alliance is similar to breaching a contract.

Meta game alliances should have to wage war on a separate basis.
The type of alliance should also make a difference.

Trade: Free Trade; Non Aggression
Security: Non Aggression; Mutual Defense
Full: Non Aggression; Mutual Defense; Mutual Enemy

Nations would be full symmetry in war status. I could see differing levels of security alliances... One would work like a Nation without politically linking them at the management level. Another would not treat them like a Nation, but should alter the thresholds and repurcussions for any aggressive actions/declarations of war/feuds... i.e. if you have that level of Security alliance, then anybody at War with the linked Settlement/Nation would be able to declare War against the Security-Allied Settlement/Company at zero cost... Until they do so, there isn't a War status vs. that group, though.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
I think it would be better to hope that the allies honor the agreement. It allows betrayal; an automatic state of war doesn't.

That isn't true. If you are auto-opted in to your ally's war, you can simply not help them, or even drop the alliance mid-war; nothing about a mechanic opting you into his war would prevent this as far as I can see. Of course, the developers would have to sort out what happens when I drop an alliance mid war (I keep warring the enemy? The war I was opted into drops?).

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Urman wrote:
I think it would be better to hope that the allies honor the agreement. It allows betrayal; an automatic state of war doesn't.
That isn't true. If you are auto-opted in to your ally's war, you can simply not help them, or even drop the alliance mid-war; nothing about a mechanic opting you into his war would prevent this as far as I can see. Of course, the developers would have to sort out what happens when I drop an alliance mid war (I keep warring the enemy? The war I was opted into drops?).

I know that, in Eve, if you drop an alliance while at war... You stayed in the war for 24 hours.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Urman wrote:
I think it would be better to hope that the allies honor the agreement. It allows betrayal; an automatic state of war doesn't.
That isn't true. If you are auto-opted in to your ally's war, you can simply not help them, or even drop the alliance mid-war; nothing about a mechanic opting you into his war would prevent this as far as I can see. Of course, the developers would have to sort out what happens when I drop an alliance mid war (I keep warring the enemy? The war I was opted into drops?).

It seems like that would result in far fewer Alliances, since joining an Alliance would have the primary effect of making it much easier for another group to kill your members consequence-free.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I don't think that declaring a state of hostility with a large group of players is "consequence-free".

Goblin Squad Member

Reading between the lines (always dangerous) no settlement will be able to have the highest level training for all the different options (warrior/fighter, cleric, rogue, mage/wizard, harvester, crafter, admin, more). This is to encourage settlements to share/trade/exchange trainings. But the thread above seems to imply that that high level paladins can only be in the settlement that has the high level paladin schools. High level clerics can only be in settlements that have high level schools of their gods (and how many steps must the settlement be from the god's alignment?). THis is going to be very problematic. Will mages need to belong to the community that has their magic style?

Instead of players belonging to communities and traveling to colleges for training (which they may or may not be offered given community politics!?!). Now it seems the exercise of their skill is dependent on the survival of the school and its settlement.

This would seem to really balkanize things and prevent the development of high level training (I see nothing that says a communities can not have a dozen level 1 schools.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Urman wrote:
I think it would be better to hope that the allies honor the agreement. It allows betrayal; an automatic state of war doesn't.
That isn't true. If you are auto-opted in to your ally's war, you can simply not help them, or even drop the alliance mid-war; nothing about a mechanic opting you into his war would prevent this as far as I can see. Of course, the developers would have to sort out what happens when I drop an alliance mid war (I keep warring the enemy? The war I was opted into drops?).

It seems like that would result in far fewer Alliances, since joining an Alliance would have the primary effect of making it much easier for another group to kill your members consequence-free.

This may be part of the design. Push almost everyone into larger and larger player organizations and them when conflicts arise, hundreds or even thousands of characters can have at it without fear of alignment or reputation consequences. The consequence of losing is always there.

I don't see fewer alliances, but probably larger alliances or more of them.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
It seems like that would result in far fewer Alliances, since joining an Alliance would have the primary effect of making it much easier for another group to kill your members consequence-free.

In the early stages of the game, or in the early life of a company, I think the companies might have a broad range of interests. Long-lived companies might be more focused on one main element of the game: gathering, or transport, or PVP. If it does work like that, I expect militant companies to ally with crafters to defend them, if alliances work that way.

Goblin Squad Member

Stated from the blog:
1. When two Companies Feud, their Allies are *not* automatically included.
2. When two Settlements are at War, their Sponsored Companies *are* automatically included.

My Assumptions:
3. If War is declared on a Nation, all Settlements and their Sponsored Companies *will* automatically be included.
4. When War is declared on a Settlement, it's Allies will *not* automatically be included.

I think that's all proper. 4 especially forces each ally to allocate DI in order to join the fight. I also think this leaves a lot of room for meaningful human interaction in maintaining good relations with allies.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If all alliances do is put a blue highlight over my allies, I hope they're cheap.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

Stated from the blog:

1. When two Companies Feud, their Allies are *not* automatically included.
2. When two Settlements are at War, their Sponsored Companies *are* automatically included.

My Assumptions:
3. If War is declared on a Nation, all Settlements and their Sponsored Companies *will* automatically be included.
4. When War is declared on a Settlement, it's Allies will *not* automatically be included.

I think that's all proper. 4 especially forces each ally to allocate DI in order to join the fight. I also think this leaves a lot of room for meaningful human interaction in maintaining good relations with allies.

With 4, I would add, unless the aggressor wishes to and expends to influence / DI to declare war on the kingdom and it's allies. This assumes that the allies are not meta gamed but are associated mechanically in-game.

This does not mean that ally(ies) can't sever their ties and opt out, but that becomes known to the aggressor and then the aggressor's costs would be adjusted.

This I believe gives the appropriate choices to the appropriate parties. An aggressor has the initial choice of whom they choose to attack. The defenders have only two choices, fight or capitulate. Allies have the choice to honor their alliance or withdraw from it.

This is my suggestion of how it could work.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

If the world was as black and white as you claim, things would be so much simpler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
If the world was as black and white as you claim, things would be so much simpler.

Lucky we're here to crowdforge then isn't it? Or is it only that when more rules and a more complicated system is asked for?

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf, so you're suggesting an attacker allocate enough DI to declare War on all allies, and get that refunded if the allies choose not to support the defender? How long do the allies have to make that decision? Are you able to attack them prior to their finalizing that decision? Are they able to attack you prior to their finalizing that decision?

Seems like a lot of extra effort that's not likely to get used a lot since basically the attacker would have to unnecessarily allocate extra DI just to put allies on the spot.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Isn't it more expensive to declare a feud on a smaller group? I'm not sure if war should be cheaper based on relative population or not.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Isn't it more expensive to declare a feud on a smaller group? I'm not sure if war should be cheaper based on relative population or not.

Feuds are more expensive based on the proportional cost per member being included in the potential targets included in the feud. This is if feuds have a flat rate cost.

I don't see why size alone should artificially lead to greater or lesser cost. If your using feuds to generate potential targets, large companies are the most cost effective to target.

A larger organization does not mean it is more able to handle itself in a feud. I have seen a 150+ member alliance crippled into inaction (fear) by just three players (5 characters).

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Isn't it more expensive to declare a feud on a smaller group? I'm not sure if war should be cheaper based on relative population or not.

Tork said that that would be the case. To my knowledge, we haven't been told that war costs would follow suit; I'd avoid the assumptions and focus on feuds vs. company alliances.

101 to 150 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Questions and dilemmas: Understanding settlements and their affect on you as a player All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.