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


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have many questions... There are a lot of opinionated people on these forums and sometimes I find it hard to differentiate opinions from fact. These questions are mainly focused on what "settlements" in Pathfinder Online really are and how they affect a players game life. So, here it goes:

Will most settlements (or all of them) consist of one, or many different guilds? If I am an unguilded, lawful good player does my "joining" of a settlement mean I'm now under the control of a ruling guild? To make it easier to understand, can I join a player run settlement and keep to myself or will I be giving up my individuality by doing so?

Will I be able to have my own house in a settlement where my goods and valuables are accessible to only me?

What if I find a guild that belongs to another settlement that represents my ideals more? Do I have to become a citizen of the settlement they call home to become eligible to join their guild? Or can guilds only belong to one sole settlement?

Do you feel that the inclusion of settlements will limit player interaction? For example, I'm a merchant with goods for sale, will I find it difficult to sell my goods in other settlements? Would that not limit my interaction with the player base and thus have a negative impact on the game as a whole?

If I am a lawful good cleric belonging to Settlement A, and I run into a lawful good paladin from settlement C (that I am not at war with) may we join a group together? Enter each other's settlements to deposit our booty?

I have plenty more questions but these will do for now...


A settlement is an aggregation of one or more companies and a number of non company affiliated players

One of these companies will be the settlement management company. They will set the laws, plan the buildings, set the taxes and decide who can and cant be a member.

You are only under the control of the ruling company in as much as if you want to remain a member of that settlement you have to abide by their rules you may leave the settlement and join another at any time.

You may belong to up to three companies (guilds) but only one may be sponsored by a settlement. It is not currently believed that you need to be a member of the settlement to be a member of a sponsored company but (opinion incoming) I believe most settlements will require that as a condition of sponsorship.

If you find a company that better suits you there is nothing to stop you leaving your present company or settlement and joining them (assuming they will accept you)

There will be many settlements that will allow you to enter as a merchant (any that are NRDS probably)

You may party with anyone of any settlement,company or alignment as far as we know.

I do not expect player housing to be in game for a long while though do expect player storage in settlements to be so

Goblin Squad Member

My Main will be located at whatever Settlement T7V is based. However for my DT, it is undecided yet. He will be part of T7V but it might be more beneficial for him to call another Settlement home for proper training. Most likely an ally of T7V like TEO's Brighthaven.

Goblin Squad Member

I think that Steelwing got those just right except I believe that this is being reviewed. However it is the last "official statement" about it so YMMV.

Steelwing wrote:
You may belong to up to three companies (guilds) but only one may be sponsored by a settlement. It is not currently believed that you need to be a member of the settlement to be a member of a sponsored company but (opinion incoming) I believe most settlements will require that as a condition of sponsorship.


Bringslite wrote:

I think that Steelwing got those just right except I believe that this is being reviewed. However it is the last "official statement" about it so YMMV.

Steelwing wrote:
You may belong to up to three companies (guilds) but only one may be sponsored by a settlement. It is not currently believed that you need to be a member of the settlement to be a member of a sponsored company but (opinion incoming) I believe most settlements will require that as a condition of sponsorship.

I always go with the latest statement but the point is well made if it is being reviewed that it may change

Goblin Squad Member

So are banks universal? What if my settlement banishes me? Do I keep the goods in my personal vault?


Nevy wrote:
So are banks universal? What if my settlement banishes me? Do I keep the goods in my personal vault?

I would expect storage to be local. If you store something in settlement A then you will need to goto settlement A to remove it from storage. Settlements may have different policies on allowing you to retrieve your items if you are kicked out.

If you settlement is taken I expect your stuff will be lootable from storage by the invaders

Goblin Squad Member

No Sir. That would destroy the "transport" and general economy totally.

What happens to your goodies is unknown at this time. (at least by us) It has been suggested that looting player settlements will be a deal, but I am not sure whether it applies to an individual's goods or just "Guberment" property.

Goblinworks Game Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Nevy wrote:
Will most settlements (or all of them) consist of one, or many different guilds?

The settlement itself is like a guild in many ways, but also has smaller guilds (companies) that are sponsored by it. It remains to be seen what the ratio will be of settlements that try to act as one unified structure and settlements that are much more a patchwork of individual company interests. In general, one of the major reasons for making settlements a collection of companies is to create a hierarchy where it's harder to get lost in a big settlement: even if the settlement leaders just know you as one of 500+ members, they'll know your company leader and your company leader will hopefully have a more personal relationship with you.

Quote:
If I am an unguilded, lawful good player does my "joining" of a settlement mean I'm now under the control of a ruling guild? To make it easier to understand, can I join a player run settlement and keep to myself or will I be giving up my individuality by doing so?

As noted above, while we're still planning on letting you join a settlement without being a member of a company, we strongly intend for you to be part of the smaller organization. Many settlements will likely recruit members solo and then encourage them to join one of the settlement's companies (since company membership gets that company more Influence at no cost to the settlement).

Whether you'll be left to your own devices depends on the management structure of the settlement. Some will likely be very interested in micromanaging members for maximum output, while others may be more relaxed. In general, giving up some of your individuality is to your benefit: you'll have a much easier time in any role in the game if you let your company and settlement help you find groups and manage infrastructure. The game is likely to be playable solo in a lot of ways, but we expect you to have more fun and an easier time with easy access to groups.

Quote:
Will I be able to have my own house in a settlement where my goods and valuables are accessible to only me?

Individual player housing is a long way off (and will likely be an instanced room in a settlement building or PoI when we do get it rather than a freestanding physical building, since we don't have enough space for every player that wants a house to take up a few meters of terrain). However, you will have private storage.

Quote:
What if I find a guild that belongs to another settlement that represents my ideals more? Do I have to become a citizen of the settlement they call home to become eligible to join their guild? Or can guilds only belong to one sole settlement?

There are two levels of "guild": settlement and company.

If you're using guild to mean settlement, being a citizen of the settlement is the same as being a member of the guild. You can join another settlement that will have you whenever you want, but that will remove your membership in your previous settlement (and in your company, if you were also a member of a sponsored company).

If by guild you meant company, if the company you want to join is sponsored, yes, you'll have to change settlements to join the company (when a company is sponsored by a settlement, all of its members become members of the settlement). You can, however, be a member of three companies, only one of which can be sponsored. So if you join a company that's loosely affiliated with a settlement but not sponsored by it, you will not necessarily have to leave your existing settlement and sponsored company.

Quote:
Do you feel that the inclusion of settlements will limit player interaction? For example, I'm a merchant with goods for sale, will I find it difficult to sell my goods in other settlements? Would that not limit my interaction with the player base and thus have a negative impact on the game as a whole?

This is part of the reason for letting players be a member of three companies, only one of which is sponsored. You can use the extra companies just to hang out with friends from different settlements, but you can also use it to set up cross-settlement organizations like trade guilds. Our hope is that many settlements will welcome merchants from other settlements, possibly based on the strength of a cross-settlement merchant company tag.

If you're trying to be a merchant without support of a larger organization, you may have to make a lot of personal relationships with the places you want to trade. Keep in mind that, until you have a social network that trusts you, the settlements where you want to trade won't have an easy way of differentiating you, an honest merchant just trying to bring them quality goods, from a spy or saboteur. Some of the more open settlements may not care, taking the risk of getting a few spies for easier access to trade flow, while others will definitely care. Keeping track of the border control policies of various settlements is likely to be key to playing a merchant successfully.

Quote:
If I am a lawful good cleric belonging to Settlement A, and I run into a lawful good paladin from settlement C (that I am not at war with) may we join a group together?

Yes.

Quote:
Enter each other's settlements to deposit our booty?

It depends on your settlements' policies. You are likely to be technically able to create storage in any settlement you can access and which has turned on visitor storage options in its bank. Whether they'll let you in on your paladin friend's say so (and whether they'll remember you if you come by without him as an escort) will vary from settlement to settlement.

Quote:
So are banks universal?

Nope, all storage is local; though we're hoping to simplify moving goods between different storage in a settlement (e.g., seamlessly transfer goods from the market, to your bank, to the crafting bin, to the shared bank). As others have noted, having to physically move goods between locations is important to the economic and conflict structures of the game.

Quote:
What if my settlement banishes me? Do I keep the goods in my personal vault?

We're still iterating on this, and likely won't have visibility on it until we start getting settlement systems implemented. We don't really want settlements to be able to loot banks under their purview at a whim (either those of former members or visitors they've allowed to access the bank). But we also don't want a lot of storage sets in the database that nobody can get to and which persist until the building is destroyed. We'll hopefully have a solid answer for this in the not too distant future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:

Quote:

What if my settlement banishes me? Do I keep the goods in my personal vault?

We're still iterating on this, and likely won't have visibility on it until we start getting settlement systems implemented. We don't really want settlements to be able to loot banks under their purview at a whim (either those of former members or visitors they've allowed to access the bank). But we also don't want a lot of storage sets in the database that nobody can get to and which persist until the building is destroyed. We'll hopefully have a solid answer for this in the not to distant future.

If I may make a suggestion Stephen. How about when you open storage in a settlement you get a key on a permanent non lootable key ring. This key is however is tradeable so in the event of being banished you could either sell the key to someone who still has access to that settlement or even give it to a trusted haulage company so they could access the storage and transport it to you. Use of the key in this way destroys it and closes the storage thus removing the database entry

Goblinworks Executive Founder

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that allowing items stored in a settlement to be seized by the current owners of the settlement would create some very meaningful interactions. In particular, when an attack looms, who defends, who evacuates, and who colludes with the aggressor in exchange for better treatment afterwards? In addition, who can become trusted enough that other players will take the risks associated with putting goods up for sale in their market, knowing that the people who guard those goods are paid by the settlement and not the owner of the goods?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks Stephen,

How will being a member of up to 3 different companies affect an individual's gain of Influence and which company will the Influence go to?

Goblin Squad Member

Guilds don't exist exactly in the way you think of them from other major MMOs in the last 10 years. Companies are said to have an "effective" limit of somewhere around 40-50 characters and a hard cap hasn't been explicitly ruled out. So if your guild is 70 people and most of them have two or three characters each, you're most likely going to end up with those people occupying four or six companies in PO and metagaming your guild association.

YOUR STUFF

We haven't gotten specifics about personal storage but we do have a strong clue. The entire economy is based on arbitrage, different prices for the same goods in different settlements. There is the opportunity to buy in one town, transport everything, and sell at another town for profit. That economic system strongly implies local storage for it to work.

Local storage meaning if you buy an item from a settlement A market you have to physically go to settlement A to pick it up. If you want to sell something at settlement F you're going to have to take it all the way to stand in settlement F and sell it there. Logically if the settlement gets blown up while your stuff is in it, your stuff would blow up or be lootable by the conquerors.

PERSONAL HOMES

The thing you have to remember here is every single person in the world that plays PO is on the same server. That would be a lot of space in the game world for half of us to have even modest cottages of our own. GW2 instances your personal house but that would lead to virtual world problems for a sandbox, where 500 players in BigTown all live at 217 Elm St. (omg don't fall asleep!)

If the devs did do some form of personal housing, it would be waaaaaaay in the future from now, multiple years most likely, there's so much yet to be built in the world. We're probably all going to be unwashed miscreants crashing in the nearest unoccupied corner of the tavern for quite a while.

Edit: Steven posted between my refreshes but I typed it so I'm leaving this here anyway. And man I was spot on too!

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
Nevy wrote:
Will most settlements (or all of them) consist of one, or many different guilds?

The settlement itself is like a guild in many ways, but also has smaller guilds (companies) that are sponsored by it. It remains to be seen what the ratio will be of settlements that try to act as one unified structure and settlements that are much more a patchwork of individual company interests. In general, one of the major reasons for making settlements a collection of companies is to create a hierarchy where it's harder to get lost in a big settlement: even if the settlement leaders just know you as one of 500+ members, they'll know your company leader and your company leader will hopefully have a more personal relationship with you.

Quote:
If I am an unguilded, lawful good player does my "joining" of a settlement mean I'm now under the control of a ruling guild? To make it easier to understand, can I join a player run settlement and keep to myself or will I be giving up my individuality by doing so?

As noted above, while we're still planning on letting you join a settlement without being a member of a company, we strongly intend for you to be part of the smaller organization. Many settlements will likely recruit members solo and then encourage them to join one of the settlement's companies (since company membership gets that company more Influence at no cost to the settlement).

Whether you'll be left to your own devices depends on the management structure of the settlement. Some will likely be very interested in micromanaging members for maximum output, while others may be more relaxed. In general, giving up some of your individuality is to your benefit: you'll have a much easier time in any role in the game if you let your company and settlement help you find groups and manage infrastructure. The game is likely to be playable solo in a lot of ways, but we expect you to have more fun and an easier time with easy access to groups.

Quote:
Will I be able to have my own house in a
...

Thank you Stephen! I greatly appreciate the answers! I find myself a bit wary of these player run settlements, however. I think I would much prefer a guild system more akin to Ultima Online and also their NPC cities. I feel like having the NPC cities available to everyone (other than criminals and murderers) promotes social interaction and community. Whilst player run settlements with various rules promote segregation and fear of exploration. I am still a huge fan of Pathfinder Online and I hope to be proven wrong :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When personal homes do come in, I hope they can be burgled. Of course, you should be able to setup traps and then you have local PC and NPC patrols to help prevent or capture thieves.

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nevy wrote:
Will most settlements (or all of them) consist of one, or many different guilds?

There's no term defined as "guild" in Pathfinder Online.

You may mean: An out of game organization that calls itself a Guild and plays many MMOs as a cohesive group. Answer: Yes, I suspect many Settlements will be founded by this type of Guild

You may mean: A persistent in-game entity where the same characters are connected by some social graph. Answer: Yes, this is a deep and rich complex part of the game design. There are three levels of this kind of organization as follows

1: Chartered company - a group of characters that share a common name and may take control of Outposts and Points of Interest

2: Settlements - a group of characters that share a common name and build and control a large Settlement structure and its various aspects.

3: Player Nations - a group of Settlements that form a cohesive political unit and gain mechanical advantages as a result.

There may be several different Companies associated with a Settlement. Not all members of a Company that is associated with a Settlement have to also be members of that Settlement. All the members of a Settlement are also members of that Settlement's Player Nation if the Settlement joins one.

Note that a Settlement is both a social graph, and a physical in-game location.

Quote:
If I am an unguilded, lawful good player does my "joining" of a settlement mean I'm now under the control of a ruling guild?

First, every character belongs to a Settlement. They all start as members of NPC Settlements, and then they can change their Settlement membership later as they ask and receive permission to do so at the discretion of the Settlement they're trying to become a member of.

There's no such thing as "under control", but you may find that in order to remain a member of a PC Settlement you are asked to do various things and if you don't do them, you could be kicked out. If you're kicked out, you'll be assigned automatically to an NPC Settlement.

Quote:
To make it easier to understand, can I join a player run settlement and keep to myself or will I be giving up my individuality by doing so?

You cannot run a Settlement by yourself. There will be tens of thousands, and then hundreds of thousands of players, and hundreds of Settlements.

You could potentially find yourself the only member of a Company, but a single-member Company is very unlikely to be meaningful. You won't be able to hold an Outpost or Point of Interest against a larger Company that wants to take it from you.

Quote:
Will I be able to have my own house in a settlement where my goods and valuables are accessible to only me?

You will have a private storage system by default in the Settlement you are a member of. You may be able to have multiple storage locations in multiple Settlements - we haven't designed that system yet. You will be able to sett access permissions to your storage to allow whom you wish to be able to take and/or place items in your storage.

Storage may be limited, either by weight or by volume. We have not designed that system yet. There may be costs to maintain storage beyond weight and volume minimums. We haven't designed that system yet.

Quote:
What if I find a guild that belongs to another settlement that represents my ideals more? Do I have to become a citizen of the settlement they call home to become eligible to join their guild? Or can guilds only belong to one sole settlement?

See above: re - no guilds.

Quote:
Do you feel that the inclusion of settlements will limit player interaction? For example, I'm a merchant with goods for sale, will I find it difficult to sell my goods in other settlements? Would that not limit my interaction with the player base and thus have a negative impact on the game as a whole?

This is not an easy question to answer simply, as it will depend on a lot of factors including how the actual in-game experience develops based on the choices made by all the players collectively and by strong and weak groups individually.

There will be places where you can take your goods and sell them. You will be selling via an auction mechanic, so you won't be making individual deals with individual characters. You will likely never know who buys your stuff.

The intent of the Settlement design is to guide players towards interacting with others, as opposed to trying to play solo. Solo play in the game will not be a way to advance your character's power. Finding a group to play with is critical to becoming a more powerful character than a character who remains in an NPC Settlement and doesn't interact with other players much.

Quote:
If I am a lawful good cleric belonging to Settlement A, and I run into a lawful good paladin from settlement C (that I am not at war with) may we join a group together? Enter each other's settlements to deposit our booty?

Yes, you can form an ad hoc party, which is a non-persistent social graph that you might want to use for a single play session. You could also form a Company with that character which would be a more persistent way of remaining connected. Access to the Settlement itself will be dictated by how the Settlement members treat outsiders - they may welcome you or they may try to kill you on sight. That is their call to make.

RyanD

CEO, Goblinworks

Banesama wrote:
When personal homes to come in, I hope they can be burgled. Of course, you should be able to setup traps and then you have local PC and NPC patrols to help prevent or capture thieves.

If they can be burgled, nobody will ever keep anything in them.

Either:

A: Burglary will work at least some of the time, so nobody will risk getting robbed because some players will build characters to maximize burglary and will rob everyone all the time. Players hate any loss of value and they especially hate it when they have no control over the loss.

B: Defense against Burglary will be strong enough that it becomes a perfect defense, in which case nobody will ever use the Burglary system and the effort to design and implement it will be worthless.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Banesama wrote:
When personal homes to come in, I hope they can be burgled. Of course, you should be able to setup traps and then you have local PC and NPC patrols to help prevent or capture thieves.

If they can be burgled, nobody will ever keep anything in them.

Either:

A: Burglary will work at least some of the time, so nobody will risk getting robbed because some players will build characters to maximize burglary and will rob everyone all the time. Players hate any loss of value and they especially hate it when they have no control over the loss.

B: Defense against Burglary will be strong enough that it becomes a perfect defense, in which case nobody will ever use the Burglary system and the effort to design and implement it will be worthless.

I can understand that dilemma. I like games that allow me to use stealth, steal, lockpick and other rogue stuff. But I can see how a lot of that type of stuff would not be good for an MMORPG.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Ryan,

A question about unaffiliated, but non aggressive play.

Could a wandering Monk travel from settlement to settlement, and throughout the wilderness, and have various social or even cooperative interactions with no formal affiliations?

Provided that this character is granted access to enter, and he participates in an effort that he is requested to assist in, he could be paid for services in training access. Woukd this be possible?

Then when he moves on his wandering path, he leaves the temporary settlement affiliation. What will happen to the skills that he trained, specifically in that settlement?

I know that there has been discussions about the possibility that he will lose the use if the skills, or might not be able to reslot them if he chose to unslot them. But, what exactly is the rationale behind listing the ability to use or slot/reslot already trained skills?

This character theme is not that of someone not participating in the social structures of the game design. What he is doing is just wandering around the world as someone looking to be a community asset ( the entire community).

Obviously I have modeled this character after Caine from the Kung Fu TV Series, but the character type could equally apply to a lone Druid, or a traveling Tinker.

CEO, Goblinworks

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Could a wandering Monk travel from settlement to settlement, and throughout the wilderness, and have various social or even cooperative interactions with no formal affiliations?

Sure. There's no mechanical reason that monk would be attacked.

The emergent choices of the players will decide how risky that lifestyle is. Maybe the character becomes so well known that everyone lets her pass without being molested.

Unlikely, but possible.

Quote:
he could be paid for services in training access. Woukd this be possible?

Not at this time. Player characters are not a source of training.

Quote:
But, what exactly is the rationale behind listing the ability to use or slot/reslot already trained skills?

Your character sheet is a combination of your character and your character's Settlement. Lose the Settlement, and the character becomes less powerful.

We are thinking about ways to reduce the pain this causes in the short term so that losing access to a Settlement doesn't cripple a character immediately.

If you are asking me for some real-world logic as to why not being a member of a Settlement means your sword works less well, I could give you some hand-waving look-at-the-monkey b#&@*%@&, but really it's just a game mechanic to tie character power to Settlement membership, thus making you care as much about your Settlement and every other character in it as you do about your individual character.

RyanD


I'm not so sure if that approach really deals with that concern particularly well.
A character leaving a Settlement is either A) going solo, or B) joining another Settlement.
If it is B), then they will be able to re-train/re-slot anything that isn't Alignment-excluded from their new Settlement.
I'm not sure of the reason to penalize characters going solo, but not characters 'defecting' to another Settlement.

It's all well and good for players to be interested in their Settlement, but it's a two-way street, and making it so Settlements can disregard their members because they will be screwed if they get kicked and are Solo doesn't seem like a good balance. Players having the option to leave seems like the basis for a balanced relationship. If a Settlement doesn't think a member yet deserves training, then they don't have to offer it to them. Once they have done so (spending their resources/XP/etc), it's there's. That this seems to affect Solos vastly more than characters who just directly defect to another Settlement just makes it seem even more ridiculous.

The relevant detail for B) is Alignment-exclusivity, so it seems that the 'Settlement-membership (or at least ACCESS) required for re-training/re-slotting' rule could apply ONLY to abilities whose training must be done in Settlements that meet specific requirements, Alignment or otherwise (e.g. Reputation, or if Settlements themselves can have status with NPC Factions).

Abilities that aren't so restricted could either be re-trained all on your own, or using the basic NPC Town training facilities...?
(Fort Inevitable, Fort Riverwatch, Thornkeep, and any others that may exist)

If Settlements themselves have NPC Faction standing and that has exclusivity over certain ability training/re-training, then a "Gone Solo" character could possibly go to the "Camp" for that NPC Faction and re-train there, assuming they personally have good standing with that NPC Faction.


Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Could a wandering Monk travel from settlement to settlement, and throughout the wilderness, and have various social or even cooperative interactions with no formal affiliations?

Sure. There's no mechanical reason that monk would be attacked.

The emergent choices of the players will decide how risky that lifestyle is. Maybe the character becomes so well known that everyone lets her pass without being molested.

Unlikely, but possible.

Quote:
he could be paid for services in training access. Woukd this be possible?

Not at this time. Player characters are not a source of training.

Quote:
But, what exactly is the rationale behind listing the ability to use or slot/reslot already trained skills?

Your character sheet is a combination of your character and your character's Settlement. Lose the Settlement, and the character becomes less powerful.

We are thinking about ways to reduce the pain this causes in the short term so that losing access to a Settlement doesn't cripple a character immediately.

If you are asking me for some real-world logic as to why not being a member of a Settlement means your sword works less well, I could give you some hand-waving look-at-the-monkey b%~@$#!$, but really it's just a game mechanic to tie character power to Settlement membership, thus making you care as much about your Settlement and every other character in it as you do about your individual character.

RyanD

While I am not suggesting you don't implement this it does seem a bit to be kicking the dog you have just run over. Oh look lost your settlement? Tough you can't use all those whizzy skills you trained go try and reenter the settlement game without them.

Gives me an incentive to give growing settlements a regular kicking to send people back to square one.

Goblin Squad Member

Quandry - I think reputation might be tied to some skills. I think other skills might be only available in areas with high DI - the levels of DI that require large PvP vulnerability windows, the settlement belonging to a player-nation, *and* high settlement reputation*. Maybe high personal reputation as well.

(*I think high settlement reputation for purposes of skills might not be hugely high - since brand new characters start at +1000.)

Goblin Squad Member

[QUOTE="Steelwing"While I am not suggesting you don't implement this it does seem a bit to be kicking the dog you have just run over. Oh look lost your settlement? Tough you can't use all those whizzy skills you trained go try and reenter the settlement game without them.

Gives me an incentive to give growing settlements a regular kicking to send people back to square one.

Good point, though I'm unsure myself of how to keep people attached to the settlement without utterly gimping them at the loss of settlement. Anyone else have an idea?


Pax Shane Gifford wrote:


Steelwing wrote:

While I am not suggesting you don't implement this it does seem a bit to be kicking the dog you have just run over. Oh look lost your settlement? Tough you can't use all those whizzy skills you trained go try and reenter the settlement game without them.

Gives me an incentive to give growing settlements a regular kicking to send people back to square one.

Good point, though I'm unsure myself of how to keep people attached to the settlement without utterly gimping them at the loss of settlement. Anyone else have an idea?

In eve people stick to their alliances pretty well. It is more common for them to leave the game than change alliance unless the alliance has been part of a failscade.


@Pax Shane Gifford

In a sandbox an alliance(eve term) or settlement(pfo term) is more than a name over your head.

It is what provides your security, your ability to train, your ability to craft, your safety while Pve'ing, your safety while gathering.

When you are in trouble it is these guys that answer your call.

This is why you stick with your settlement because while they ask much of you they also give much in return.

It is totally different from a theme park guild which frankly unless you are raiding is not really necessary


Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
I'm unsure myself of how to keep people attached to the settlement without utterly gimping them at the loss of settlement. Anyone else have an idea?

The thing is, this doesn't provide much motivation to keep them attached to THE original Settlement where they did that Training originally, it provides motivation to be(come) a member of ANY Settlement that offers that Training/Re-Slotting.

Settlements can already tax their members, and leaving the Settlement means loss of access to those resources. Of course if you join a new Settlement, they will also have their taxed resources, although you probably won't have the same level of access to them right away.

Another motivation to stay in a Settlement is your membership in a Charted Company there, you also lose the benefits of that Influence (unless the whole Company goes Unchartered and possibly Charters to another Settlement).

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Losing access to exotic character abilities(*) is not necessary a "gimp"; it is really a loss of some benefits on the margin. You might have a sword with the [Vorpal] keyword that you (eventually) lose the ability to leverage, meaning that maybe a certain attack option ceases being available, meaning that you are 0.5% (totally made up number) less efficient when attacking characters with necks.

Of course you want that 0.5% (who wouldn't, especially since you probably jumped through a lot of hoops to get it) but it's not the difference between being useless and being uber.

(*) NPC Settlements will enable you to use a lot of abilities. We're even thinking about ways you could use abilities you can't train in an NPC Settlement, so people who end up back in an NPC Settlement after a sojurn in PC Settlement life would actually be better than people who never left, but I digress.


@Urman
Honestly, as long as your character personally fits the relevant Alignment or Reputation or whatever restrictions, I'm not sure why there should be any restrictions at all... Although if Re-Training is done at a Trainer normally, you might need to go to a generic trainer in Thornkeep/etc in order to actually do the re-slotting, just to not have an advantage over Settlement Members who must do that at their Settlement.

You might say that there is some value in keeping the restriction for those tied to relevant Alignment Settlements, meaning you would need to "Defect" to a similarly Aligned Settlement, but I just don't see how that is really an effective balancing mechanism longterm: All that does is mean playes will first join another similarly Aligned Settlement in order to Re-Train, and then once Re-Trained they can freely join any Settlement they are able to. I don't see the difference there vs. simply enforcing any Alignment requirements based on your current personal Alignment, since being kicked out for Alignment shift is the only thing which could place a mechanical barrier to joining another similarly Aligned Settlement for Re-Training purposes. (same for Reputation, NPC Faction, etc)

I do kind of like the idea of being able to Re-Train at NPC Factions (assuming some abilities are tied to them). There is an advantage if your Settlement is aligned with those Factions, just for convenience sake (and keeping any money for Training Costs within the Settlement), but if they aren't (or you aren't a member of a Settlement currently) you can always travel to the NPC Faction Camp and re-train there, for just a bit more hassle, but not otherwise imposing on your choices in the game.


Ryan Dancey wrote:
Losing access to exotic character abilities(*) is not necessary a "gimp";

To be fair here your original statement made it sound like you would lose access to all abilities that you couldnt train in an NPC settlement. IE most of those above tier 1


All this seems to be under the assumption that you must be a member to train at a Settlement. I believe that was stated to be "up in the air" or subject to change, i.e. there is a possibility to buy Training at other Settlements (assuming you fulfill pre-reqs for the ability itself), but either way I don't think this is a penalty/restriction that needs to exist as currently described.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmm, I'm not sure on this. It seems like if the loss is made so marginal then it doesn't matter whether or not you stick with a settlement. Might be one of those places where a balancing act has to be used.

@Quandary, I don't really care if people switch from one regular settlement to another and retain training; I think that should definitely be allowed by the game systems, or else people get stuck with one group and no way to leave it without completely restarting their play on PfO. The issue I have is where people leave one regular settlement and join CE sucks-ville, but they still have the necessary training and funds to ignore the jerk-funnel which the whole system is supposed to be.


Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

Hmm, I'm not sure on this. It seems like if the loss is made so marginal than it doesn't matter whether or not you stick with a settlement.

@Quandary, I don't really care if people switch from one regular settlement to another and retain training; I think that should definitely be allowed by the game systems, or else people get stuck with one group and no way to leave it without completely restarting their play on PfO. The issue I have is where people leave one regular settlement and join CE sucks-ville, but they still have the necessary training and funds to ignore the jerk-funnel which the whole system is supposed to be.

I would advise to wait till settlements get into game and then reassess Shane. I am not sure if you have any sandbox experience (if you have then this doesnt apply to you but from your worries I am not sure you have) but I have always found it difficult to describe the difference in culture and loyalty between guilds in a sandbox and guilds in a themepark game.

Do not get me wrong people do change loyalties in a sandbox but it is a lot more dangerous to do so.

Goblin Squad Member

@Steel, as I said to Quandary I'm not that concerned with people bouncing between settlements in the normal sense. It's only bouncing between settlements, one LG and one CE, as a questionably exploit-like behavior that has me concerned. (Basically, get training from LG settlement, then leave it to become CE + low rep until you want your next training session during a new patch or something, thus avoiding most of the penalties for CE + low rep). Wouldn't even have to join a second settlement, I'm just concerned with keeping your full effectiveness after leaving a settlement.

EDIT: also I'm a total newb to sandboxes of this variety; I dipped my toes into Darkfall and found their systems to be quite lacking, and that's the only sandbox of this nature that I've tried (I've played plenty of single player sandboxes though, but those don't do much to inform me of the normal social dynamics :) )


But to (re)train and/or USE those abilities, they probably need to fulfill those alignment/etc requirements themselves ("Personally Aligned abilities"). A fallen Paladin who goes CE isn't going to use LG abilities regardless of their Settlement.

If you're talking about abilities that only must meet the Alignment requirement at time of training/slotting, i.e. the Trainer must be of an appropriate Settlement ("Socially Aligned abilities") but thereafter can be used by anybody regardless of current Alignment status, the current approach doesn't actually prevent that... Because if you have them slotted before being kicked out/leaving, you CAN continue to use them, you just can't freely re-slot them. Why is re-slotting more important than actually using abilities?

An alternate approach may be having oppositely Aligned abilities be mutually incompatable for slotting, whether Personally Aligned or Socially Aligned. Less-stringent "Socially Aligned" abilities could be re-slotted freely (not at a Trainer in an opposite Alignment Settlement, but at a neutral Trainer if nothing else), as long as an opposed Aligned ability isn't already slotted. Of course, if you are a member of an oppositely aligned settlement, then that means you will be re-slotting for a fee at Neutral Settlements (NPC or PC).

Most Aligned abilities I would expect to be strongly "Personally Aligned", which rules out joining opposite alignment Settlements (you could move from a LG Settlement to a LN Settlement and continue using LG abilities if you remain LG personally, or you could move to a TN Settlement and continue using abilities which merely require "Good" Personal Alignment as long as you maintain that status), but a 'simultaneous slotting' rule could cover any remainder of "Socially Aligned" abilities.

A CE Settlement may get some PCs formerly of other Alignment Settlements, but a LG Settlement is stronger because they can have their whole heirarchy of PCs present and working for their goals, while the CE settlement just benefits from leakage, and those people can't train any further in those ability chains, not to mention their XP/Feats have been spent on things which aren't compatable with things that play to the strength of the CE Settlement.

I don't understand why the current approach would itself be sufficient/desirable, maybe allowing it to work like I described would lead to some exploits, but if that isn't to be allowed then the current system should be STRENGTHENED to also prevent simultaneously slotting opposite "Socially Aligned" abilities. If such abilities are to exist (in addition to ones that only function if your current personal Alignment matches them, which inherently excludes opposite alignment abilities) then I think a specific term for them is needed, just to keep things straight... e.g. "Socially Aligned" vs. "Personally Aligned".


Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
@Steel, as I said to Quandary I'm not that concerned with people bouncing between settlements in the normal sense. It's only bouncing between settlements, one LG and one CE, as a questionably exploit-like behavior that has me concerned. (Basically, get training from LG settlement, then leave it to become CE + low rep until you want your next training session during a new patch or something, thus avoiding most of the penalties for CE + low rep). Wouldn't even have to join a second settlement, just concerned with keeping your full effectiveness after leaving a settlement.

Ah I see. They cannot do that however. To join a settlement your core and active have to be both within one step of the settlement alignment.

Once you join your active can go whereever. However I cannot see one alignment that is within both one step of LG and CE

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Losing access to exotic character abilities(*) is not necessary a "gimp"; it is really a loss of some benefits on the margin. You might have a sword with the [Vorpal] keyword that you (eventually) lose the ability to leverage, meaning that maybe a certain attack option ceases being available, meaning that you are 0.5% (totally made up number) less efficient when attacking characters with necks.

Of course you want that 0.5% (who wouldn't, especially since you probably jumped through a lot of hoops to get it) but it's not the difference between being useless and being uber.

(*) NPC Settlements will enable you to use a lot of abilities. We're even thinking about ways you could use abilities you can't train in an NPC Settlement, so people who end up back in an NPC Settlement after a sojurn in PC Settlement life would actually be better than people who never left, but I digress.

This last part is key Ryan, for a lot of players but particularly those that lose their settlements. Then there are those of us who might either be mercenaries or might attach to settlements temporarily, kind of like vagabonds.

I'm sure you realize us bandits types are not the most welcome. We do steal other player's stuff, and that is oddly frowned upon in MMO culture, go figure!

Goblin Squad Member

It might be possible to drift core alignment between CE and LG quickly enough to make this feasible; I don't know, because numbers are all up in the air at this point.

The way the system has been pitched, a LG high rep person should be stronger than a CE low rep person almost always. If the CE low rep person is actually a LG high rep person who just went on a 50-person kill spree and tanked all his scores down to CE low rep (and was subsequently automatically booted from his high rep settlement), I hope he immediately feels the effects of the shift; he should be weaker right away (in my opinion) for the system to be most effective at deterring people from pursuing that path.


Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

It might be possible to drift core alignment between CE and LG quickly enough to make this feasible; I don't know, because numbers are all up in the air at this point.

The way the system has been pitched, a LG high rep person should be stronger than a CE low rep person almost always. If the CE low rep person is actually a LG high rep person who just went on a 50-person kill spree and tanked all his scores down to CE low rep (and was subsequently automatically booted from his high rep settlement), I hope he immediately feels the effects of the shift; he should be weaker right away (in my opinion) for the system to be most effective at deterring people from pursuing that path.

Ah I assumed you were referring to voluntary settlement changes.

*On a side note mrs Steelwing is thinking of joining the forums....please be nice to her because it will be me that is kicked around the house if you aren't....plus you will find I am the cuddly one of the family

Goblin Squad Member

Here's the basic scenario I was thinking of (and sorry if I'm not as good as coming up with exploitative behaviors as some others):

1. Train up as HR-LG in a LG settlement.
2. Go on a do-whatever spree; kill noobs, random people, and do whatever else you can get away with. Hell, bring some friends so you have a group of power equivalent to most HR-LG characters.
3. Wait out the low rep/CE that occurs as a result; maybe switch to some other alts, maybe do some action to grind back your scores if that's possible (maybe automated via a bot), or maybe keep your scores where they're at and use your still-effective character who is no longer restricted by rep or alignment.
4. goto 1 until you're confident enough in your character's current power level to go on another romp.

This is something I don't want to see, personally. One way to fix that (I believe) would be to create immediate repercussions to a HR-LG character whose scores drop too low.

Edit: I'll be sure to give the missus a welcome, whether or not her connection to you is immediately obvious. :) (unless she's already here :o )

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

It might be possible to drift core alignment between CE and LG quickly enough to make this feasible; I don't know, because numbers are all up in the air at this point.

The way the system has been pitched, a LG high rep person should be stronger than a CE low rep person almost always. If the CE low rep person is actually a LG high rep person who just went on a 50-person kill spree and tanked all his scores down to CE low rep (and was subsequently automatically booted from his high rep settlement), I hope he immediately feels the effects of the shift; he should be weaker right away (in my opinion) for the system to be most effective at deterring people from pursuing that path.

I know I have said this several times in the past, but I have had a character concept of a Paladin with a core alignment of CE and an active alignment of LG. The Knightly Order of the Corrupted Soul. This Paladin woukd have to continuously perform acts that were both Lawful and Good in order to not slip towards CE.

This I felt was a purer form of being a Paladin as opposed to being lazy about it and settling Core to LG and letting the drift do some of the work for me.

Unfortunately I don't believe that kind if role playing is going to be supported by PFO.


Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

Here's the basic scenario I was thinking of (and sorry if I'm not as good as coming up with exploitative behaviors as some others):

1. Train up as HR-LG in a LG settlement.
2. Go on a do-whatever spree; kill noobs, random people, and do whatever else you can get away with. Hell, bring some friends so you have a group of power equivalent to most HR-LG characters.
3. Wait out the low rep/CE that occurs as a result; maybe switch to some other alts, maybe do some action to grind back your scores if that's possible (maybe automated via a bot).
4. goto 1 until you're confident enough in your character's current power level to go on another romp.

This is something I don't want to see, personally. One way to fix that (I believe) would be to create immediate repercussions to a HR-LG character whose scores drop too low.

Edit: I'll be sure to give the missus a welcome, whether or not her connection to you is immediately obvious. :) (unless she's already here :o)

As I understand that wont be possible

1) As soon as your lawful or good drops below 7000 you lose the paladin powers as both (currently) require +7000 in each stat

2) The low rep after a 50 player killing spree (assuming they are not low rep) is likely to take around 100 days logged on by passive rep gain

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

It might be possible to drift core alignment between CE and LG quickly enough to make this feasible; I don't know, because numbers are all up in the air at this point.

The way the system has been pitched, a LG high rep person should be stronger than a CE low rep person almost always. If the CE low rep person is actually a LG high rep person who just went on a 50-person kill spree and tanked all his scores down to CE low rep (and was subsequently automatically booted from his high rep settlement), I hope he immediately feels the effects of the shift; he should be weaker right away (in my opinion) for the system to be most effective at deterring people from pursuing that path.

I know I have said this several times in the past, but I have had a character concept of a Paladin with a core alignment of CE and an active alignment of LG. The Knightly Order of the Corrupted Soul. This Paladin woukd have to continuously perform acts that were both Lawful and Good in order to not slip towards CE.

This I felt was a purer form of being a Paladin as opposed to being lazy about it and settling Core to LG and letting the drift do some of the work for me.

Unfortunately I don't believe that kind if role playing is going to be supported by PFO.

Bluddwolf,

I remember you posting about that. It actually sounds challenging and interesting. I would love if something like that were possible.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:

As I understand that wont be possible

1) As soon as your lawful or good drops below 7000 you lose the paladin powers as both (currently) require +7000 in each stat

2) The low rep after a 50 player killing spree (assuming they are not low rep) is likely to take around 100 days logged on by passive rep gain

For #1, if I remember correctly that was only an example, but I'm too lazy to go look it up.

#2 does sound accurate to me; perhaps that will be the thing that keeps players from doing this more than once.


Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

Here's the basic scenario I was thinking of:

1. Train up as HR-LG in a LG settlement.
2. Go on a do-whatever spree; kill noobs, random people, and do whatever else you can get away with. Hell, bring some friends so you have a group of power equivalent to most HR-LG characters.
3. [Wait out/grind back your alignment to LG or 1-step compatable]
4. goto 1 until you're confident enough in your character's current power level to go on another romp.

This is something I don't want to see, personally. One way to fix that (I believe) would be to create immediate repercussions to a HR-LG character whose scores drop too low.

That's the thing, the currently described system doesn't apply immediate repurcussions, it doesn't prevent you from using the abilities, it just prevents you from re-slotting them. If these abilities depend on personal Alignment then they won't work even if this rule doesn't exist. If they don't depend on personal Alignment (but are less stringently "Socially Aligned"), then you shouldn't be seriously inconvenienced to leave them slotted and functioning, albeit you lose some flexibility but the fundamental alignment contrast remains.

I think re-slotting could be possible as long as you can't simultaneously slot opposed alignment abilities. There could still be an inconvenience (and financial) factor if you cannot actually do that re-slotting at the trainer of an OPPOSED alignment Settlement, but instead must pay a fee to an outside Neutral Settlement or even restrict it to NPC Settlements of the relevant Alignment if you think that would favor Neutral PC Settlements too much. At that point it is not about opposite aligned Settlements, but about Neutrals, and they have already given up on any synergy/unique powers from having an Alignment (OK, perhaps there will be TN specific benefits, but that probably won't be synergistic with any non-N Aligned Abilities).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that it would be pretty simple to link the ability to keep certain skills slotted, linked with a certain rep requirement. Much like certain classes can't equip certain types of armor in other games. If you switch roles, the incompatible armour just falls off into your pack.

So, if you would need a certain rep level just to train a skill, you could also need it current to keep the skill slotted. Fall below the level and the skill goes "unslotted" and unusable.

CEO, Goblinworks

Yeah it would be dumb to allow you to keep using a character ability that you couldn't slot if it wasn't already slotted.


Right, so going with that, we can remove the issue of joining OPPOSITE aligned Settlements (or becoming that opposite alignment yourself) from the dicussion, it is just about joining NEUTRAL Settlements which are compatable with you remaining of the eligible Alignment to use these abilities. If said abilities require a 'corner alignment' like LG/CE then TN is also ruled out, if they just care about one Alignment axis, then TN Settlements should be possible to join.

Characters in that situation clearly CAN continue using such abilities, the question is whether imposing an 'inflexibility' factor that forces them to not juggle slots as much is a worthwhile goal. Or if some inflexibility is desired, would allowing them to re-slot those abilities only at an appropriately aligned Trainer location be sufficient? That might be the NPC Towns, or possibly a PC Settlement of appropriate Alignment. Both would be taking a fee for that training that doesn't go into the Neutral Settlement's accounts, as well as requiring more travel time, so there is still a "below optimum"/hassle factor in play.

I guess this comes down to the vision for Neutral Settlements. Ignoring characters leaving previous Settlements, are Neutral Settlements supposed to allow non-Neutral members (including non-Neutral Clerics presumably with aligned abilities), and are those people supposed to train somehow? If so, I don't see what is the big deal about people being able to re-slot Aligned abilities, or why there should be any hassle factor there at all, even if training new Aligned abilities WILL have a hassle factor or limit. If re-slotting IS somehow deemed to be needing that hassle factor, making it congruent with the approach for training new abilities seems the minimum standard.

Perhaps certain tiers of non-Neutral Aligned abilities might only be trainable in a non-Neutral location, but if it's supposed to be at all viable for non-Neutral PCs to be members of Neutral Settlements, there will need to be some way to do that, even if there is some hassle factor. Players will always have the "hassle factor" option of temporarily joining an Aligned Settlement to re-slot/train Aligned abilities, before quitting and re-joining their Neutral Settlement... So why not just make that process transparent and let them pay fees for training at other Settlements? (and/or NPC Towns, probably for lower tier abilities)

I think it's best to focus on making Aligned settlements have unique abilities/benefits/synergies with appropriately aligned members, rather than go down the other road of penalizing Neutral settlements... Whose niche is not so much in unique benefits (although there may be for True Neutral), but in flexibility and open-ness to more characters, so sabotaging that open-ness seems misguided.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

@Stephen or Ryan

A question regarding belonging to multiple companies and information that shows up upon seeing or meeting people. Will all three of my companies instantly be available for them to see, just my sponsored company, or some combination ? Also, as an OP ask, how will gaining influence work in this situation ?

1 to 50 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.