Supporting "classes" Why are the devs so stuck to this idea?

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Gol Phyllain wrote:

I would also be fine with one high end "support" building that you have to build that now supports everything. You guys get to keep your we hate people who pvp us without our say so thing and I get one less barrier to playing the game with the people I want to.

lol. I don't know who that is directed toward, but it has little to do with the conversation and (if you mean me) is a bit beyond simply inaccurate. ;)

[Lifedragn]

Nihimon wrote:

Guurzak wrote:

Already addressed:

Guurzak wrote:

Skill support tied to settlement quality is absolutely a necessity in order to keep the reputation model working.

*Role-specific support* with each role requiring specific and separate support is not a necessary attribute of this design.

Allowing each settlement to support all roles at a level based on its quality/rep threshold completely addresses concerns about highly-trained griefers without compelling a choice between the role I want to play and the settlement I want to play in.

That would certainly deal with the particular need to hold Low Reputation characters accountable. However, I think you may be discounting the value of forcing meaningful choices about what the Settlement does. Allowing every Settlement to support every Role seems kind of silly. Every Settlement will support every Role and still have great Markets and great Crafting facilities. Where are the trade-offs? There need to be opportunity costs.

Nihimon, are you actually supporting the claim that all of TEO's Wizards should go move to Phaeros and that all of TSV's fighters should move to Brighthaven? That seems to be your position from what I am reading.

Now, I think it is perfectly acceptable for TEO's Wizards to go visit Phaeros for the best possible wizard training. But if Brighthaven has enough DI and a reasonably high Rep threshold, there should be no reason that Brighthaven could not support those players having their skills while living in Brighthaven after they went to Phaeros to train.

I think most folks here are consenting to the following structure - are you saying you disagree?
Unable to train all roles in max settlement - absolutely valid.
Unable to support all roles (after alignment considerations) in max settlement - is likely to greatly hurt this game.

[Lord Zodd]

So far in this thread the only valid concern anyone has stated is that they are worried that this game mechanic will prevent them from playing with their friends. I haven't heard an actual reason why people believe this is true though, just that they are concerned that it will be the case.

There is absolutely NOTHING preventing you from playing the game with someone from a different settlement. Don't confuse Companies with Settlements. You can all be in the same company and call different settlements home. If you guys want to attack or defend a settlement, your company does a feud and there won't be any confusion on the battlefield. Heck you can even all thread bind your characters to the same place, if you are worried about having to run to meet up.

Please, explain to me how you can't play with your friends?

It also seems like people are thinking of Settlements in a way differently than me. I think of a Settlement as a resource. Something my character needs to train and support his skills. I need to defend this resource and maintain its upkeep to ensure my character has access to his maximum potential. I like this because it keeps me invested in something physical in the world besides just my character.

Lets look at some current, or as planned, facts of the game. The player towns are called Settlements, not Cities, for a reason. They are supposed to be small towns in the untamed lands of the River Kingdoms, like a settlement in the wild west. Thus they are limited on how many buildings they can have due to DI. Support buildings are one of those limiting choices a settlement needs to make when they use their DI. Most settlements will most likely have a lot of low tier support structures, but only a couple high tier ones. Along with some training buildings. This is the intended way a settlement will be set up. As such, for a company to be able to get all it's members access to training and support it will need to be involved in multiple Settlements. When enough like minded companies band together with enough Settlements then it becomes a Nation. (I am not sure about any actual in game Nation mechanics, but I hope there will be some). Now the companies in the Nation have to work together to support and defend their Settlements. If they need more Settlements to get training and support for skills then they will go to war and take someone else's Settlement. There are a limited number of Settlement hexes so Settlements are a limited resource that people will be fighting over all the time. If one of the Settlements in your nation is destroyed and it was the only one your nation had that supported top tier evocation spells, then you have 30 days to get it back or to reallocate some things in a different Settlement to gain that support again or you will have some unhappy spellcasters. That is very meaningful and just because there might be some other meaningful choices in the game, does not negate this one's very real value.

I personally do not see anything wrong with the intended game in the above paragraph. If you do, then explain specifically why and use facts, don't present vague feelings as an argument.

[Audoucet]

I'm very sorry, but I don't really understand what is the problem here ? I am not completely up to date about everything, mostly because reading technical stuff in English is really not that much exciting. So, maybe I missed something.

But essentially, if I want to play a mage, and my friend wants to play a paladin, what is stopping me from living in rogue-settlement A, while I get training from mage-settlement B, and he gets training from paladin-settlement C ? As long as we are in seriours nation of course.

[Gol Phyllain]

Travel time, engaging in "meaningful pvp" the feud system is company based the war mechanic is city based. Being able to contribute to your "settlement resource" with people you actually like. I know I would be way more invested in helping build a city where I like the leadership as apposed to somewhere that I have to live because they happen to support my skill set.

[theStormWeaver]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

My point was that removing limited support offers a simple way to make settlement non-dependent on each other: Train up, then ditch the others. They don't have to be murderhermits (murderhobos are homeless, silly), but they're still a big, powerful group that doesn't need to have dealings with anybody. They can just focus on holding lots of POIs.

Also, Cleaverton can add members: Other high-level players who see Cleaverton is doing really, really well by not having to invest in training newcomers.

Not everyone will be as extreme as Cleaverton, but this can still happen: Train up to a satisfying level and then stop making deals.

But even then they still won't be playing "solo." They'll be playing with the other couple hundred members of their settlement. Even if they hold lots of PoIs they are participating in the territorial control portion of the game, and that is MHI.

I think your murderhoboville is a perfectly valid style of play, and would make a really interesting part of the game world and the political fabric of the Crusader Road region.

[Being]

Audoucet wrote:

I'm very sorry, but I don't really understand what is the problem here ?

I might be horribly, horribly wrong but I think that some folks who expect to have low rep don't want that low rep to be inconvenient. That is the skeleton I think I see beneath the flesh of 'cant play with friends'.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Gol Phyllain wrote:

Travel time, engaging in "meaningful pvp" the feud system is company based the war mechanic is city based. Being able to contribute to your "settlement resource" with people you actually like. I know I would be way more invested in helping build a city where I like the leadership as apposed to somewhere that I have to live because they happen to support my skill set.

I can get behind those feelings. There are some details missing in our assumptions. Are there enough plots to support all the roles possible with the proper DI, alignment, and reputation? Can "supported" training be maxed to that settlement's limit? If the answers are "yes", it is "potential" to have every thing you want.

Isn't that a workable system for you?

[Lord Zodd]

1. Travel time
We don't really know how logging into the game is going to work yet. If you logout in a different Settlement, will you log back in at your Settlement, or will you log back in wherever you logged out?
If you and your friends are in neighboring Settlements(which you should be if you are in the same nation) meeting up will be a couple minutes.
Travel time is always going to be a concern in PFO, but when it comes to forming a party with your friends Travel time probably won't be the concern you think it is.

2. Engaging in "meaningful pvp" (the feud system is company based the war mechanic is city based.)
Yes. Not sure how you mean the support structures mechanic will add or detract from meaningful PvP. Please explain.

3. Being able to contribute to your "settlement resource" with people you actually like. I know I would be way more invested in helping build a city where I like the leadership as apposed to somewhere that I have to live because they happen to support my skill set.
I don't see any reason why you can't like the leadership of a Settlement that supports your skills. If there is only one settlement that will allow you access that supports the skills you want and it is run by jerkwads then convince other people to help you kill them and take their Settlement.

[Gol Phyllain]

... really? So despite my multiple posts about alternate ways to limit low rep players you assume that I am upset because im going to be a griefer and this limits me.

[Audoucet]

Gol Phyllain wrote:

... really? So despite my multiple posts about alternate ways to limit low rep players you assume that I am upset because im going to be a griefer and this limits me.

I just don't understand the problem, since you don't have to live where you have your training. Maybe there is a problem, but for now,, I don't see it.

[Gol Phyllain]

@ zod

In response to 1.

So basically you are saying that we should just join a city that supports us and then never actually live there. That seems like you are just working around the mechanic. A sign of a bad mechanic.

In response to 2.

You and I are friends we both live in different cities because you are a fighter and I am a wizard.

My SCC declares a feud on someone. You are unable to support me in my fight without spending more influence or tanking your rep.

In response to 3.

I wish you the best of luck with getting along with everyone in a video game.

[Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf]

I'm going to state this here.

Golgotha will have a high rep threshold. In fact we will compete competitively with all the Goody-Two shoes in the River Kingdoms. We have discussed extensively how to maintain a High reputation while still filling our role in Galorian.

Is this the new attempt to slander Golgotha?

[Audoucet]

Gol Phyllain wrote:

@ zod

In response to 1.

So basically you are saying that we should just join a city that supports us and then never actually live there. That seems like you are just working around the mechanic. A sign of a bad mechanic.

it means only that you need to live in a nation.

[Wurner]

Audoucet wrote:

Gol Phyllain wrote:

... really? So despite my multiple posts about alternate ways to limit low rep players you assume that I am upset because im going to be a griefer and this limits me.

I just don't understand the problem, since you don't have to live where you have your training. Maybe there is a problem, but for now,, I don't see it.

Audoucet, If I understand it correctly, the buildings that provide training (acquisition of a feat) are separate from the buildings that allow you to make use of that feat.

Edit: the question seems to be not about whether settlements should provide all training but rather if they should allow support of every role.

[Being]

Except that all training structures are incidentally also support structures, but not all support structures are also training structures.

[Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf]

A very simple and sweet explanation as well.

1) Training is required to get new skills

2) Support is required in order to "slot" skills.

It is a worry that due to common rumor:
Settlements will not be able to SUPPORT all classes.

If a settlement can not support all classes, some players may be forced to join another settlement because of their chosen skills.

Another quick explanation:
If a game ever FORCES you to choose between friends and chosen play-style there is something fundamentally wrong.

This game (At this current moment, which a developer could easily dismiss our worry by telling us this is not the case) does not "encourage" meaningful human interaction. It is trying to "artificially ENFORCE" conflict.

If human beings were capable of resisting conflict, we would live in a Utopia.

(Like that last part there? That strawman argument, should I use character assassination as well? Everytime a comment is made saying "oh Low Rep" that is exactly your argument. Bring something, anything to the table as a reasonable consenting adult)

[Merkaile of Fidelis]

I had thought the issue of friends in different settlements and paying extra influence to help out would go a little without saying so I didn't post it in the name of brevity in an already long post.

An example:

Let's say I'm in a CC The Realmwalkers of Ogem's Vigil. I have a friend in The Bronies of Aeternum. Our settlements really aren't allied and are aligned differently. If I want to support my friends in Callambea I'd have to pay an influence cost if another settlement attacked them. If Callambea is doing the attacking then not only do they have to pay influence but so do I. Perhaps that's the way GW wants it but I see that as a little steep.

Then there's the problem of me being only one member in my CC. If I can't sell them in why we should get involved then I'm basically out of luck without taking a reputation hit (I plan on being as high rep as feasible). Given how few Paxians were as set as I on playing a good aligned character (they sacrificed to play with the quality people of Pax) I'll have to build my CC with outsiders, so this is the most likely event in my case.

[Audoucet]

Okay, thank you, I understand better.

Yes, then, support should be possible for all classes. Well, maybe with a few exceptions for very opposite roles, like paladin/black knight, obviously.

[Crash_00]

His problem isn't anything to do with training, it has to do with support.

He doesn't mind having to go to Settlement X to get his training. His issue is that only Settlement X, Y and Z offer support structures for his class at the level he has trained to. Meanwhile all his friends live in Settlement A and B.

If Settlement A and B are part of the X,Y,Z,A,B Nation, then travel time would probably be minimal.

However, what if your friends are in Settlements A and B because those are the only Settlements that offer support for their classes at the level they have achieved. What if A and B are in a different nation? Across the map?

To put it in a different perspective, if I'm understanding his stance right, let's look at three players. We'll call them Larry, Curly, and Moe.

Larry wants to play a Fighter, Curly wants to Play a Rogue, and Moe wants to play a Wizard.

The two level together in the same settlement for several months until they hit the end of Tier 2 skills, all out of the same city. We'll call it Stoogeville.

However, after getting Tier 2 done, Stoogeville only is able to support Fighter to Tier 3.

Fortunately for Curly, a nearby settlement of Columbia is part of their nation, and has Tier 3 Rogue training. Curly can settle their, and travel time is pretty minimal. Yay! Crisis averted.

Moe isn't as lucky though. The only place offering Tier 3 Wizard support is across the map in Moleville. He's looking at thirty minutes to an hour of travel time each way to play with his freinds.

He's left with the choice of either not advancing to Tier 3 wizard, being horribly inconvenienced, or ditching his friends and picking up new ones.

While I think it will be hard to have that big of an issue with starting roles, I can see later roles (Paladins, Barbarians, etc.) having these issues. It is a concern that my wife and I have had, since we like very different styles of characters.

[Wurner]

Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

If a game ever FORCES you to choose between friends and chosen play-style there is something fundamentally wrong.

Perhaps you don't consider World of Warcraft a good game but it doesn't allow those playing trolls to play with their friends playing dwarves.

[Being]

Gol Phyllain wrote:

... really? So despite my multiple posts about alternate ways to limit low rep players you assume that I am upset because im going to be a griefer and this limits me.

Not at all. I suspect you are constructing interesting use-cases but have an ulterior motive in protesting what looks like it has a chance at proving to be a problem for low rep enthusuiasts.

You may have proposed many alternate ways to limit low rep players, but even more ways to limit low rep players in other multiplayer games have historically failed miserably.

You might not see how this could work, or you might be able to see all too well how this could work out, but what I do know is that:
a. you expect to be low rep
b. you're arguing pretty hard for the currently proposed system to be scrapped.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to divine the faint suggestion of a pattern there already.

[Lord Zodd]

I think this is an issue of perspective and expectations of the game.

People seem to be thinking that they will have to only worry about one Settlement and that it will only have one company. Maybe some smaller companies they make, but just to be able to claim Towers, and later, PoIs.

Save yourself a lot of grief and stop thinking that way.

That is not how the game is designed to be. That doesn't create the level of interaction between players that GW is aiming for.

The way that I think of the game is at a larger scale. A nation scale, where various nations are competing for resources and where Settlements are one of these resources. The nations are made up of many different companies and multiple Settlements. This is how the game is designed to end up as. In this case the nation is your character's home, not just one particular Settlement. Looking at the game in this light shows that there is no problem with limited support buildings.

[Crash_00]

Races (and the alliances in wow really) are not really play styles. They're just visual dressings. Classes are the play styles, and unless they changed it since I quit, each faction has all the classes now.

They realized their mistakes in not letting both factions have all the playstyles. It separated people wanting to play together (turning them away from the game), and made it almost impossible to balance (not that they ever really managed balance between classes while I played).

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Wurner wrote:

Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

If a game ever FORCES you to choose between friends and chosen play-style there is something fundamentally wrong.

Perhaps you don't consider World of Warcraft a good game but it doesn't allow those playing trolls to play with their friends playing dwarves.

Don't the factions (horde and alliance) have pretty similar playable roles in each? That seems more a matter of one friend playing "good guy" and one playing "evil guy". Not that Horde and Alliance are set up as good vs. evil, but you get the idea.

[Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf]

@Wurner
Did I say Race or Play style? I think I said play-style. Let me reread my post. ... Yep I definitely said play-style.

@Zodd
The developers have CONSTANTLY said that Nations will be powerful and their preferred tool of control is the settlement level. So maybe it isn't thinking "BIG" that is the problem (Considering Golgotha is in the only stated Nation so far) but maybe something along the lines of artificial controls(that make very little to no sense from a Pathfinder TT Sense, check out the Ultimate Campaign Guide) placed on settlements in regards to who you have as your "inner circle" of close friends.

[Crash_00]

Lord Zodd wrote:

I think this is an issue of perspective and expectations of the game.

People seem to be thinking that they will have to only worry about one Settlement and that it will only have one company. Maybe some smaller companies they make, but just to be able to claim Towers, and later, PoIs.

Save yourself a lot of grief and stop thinking that way.

That is not how the game is designed to be. That doesn't create the level of interaction between players that GW is aiming for.

The way that I think of the game is at a larger scale. A nation scale, where various nations are competing for resources and where Settlements are one of these resources. The nations are made up of many different companies and multiple Settlements. This is how the game is designed to end up as. In this case the nation is your character's home, not just one particular Settlement. Looking at the game in this light shows that there is no problem with limited support buildings.

Actually I am thinking on a nation scale. If the nation already has Fighter support and doesn't see the point in Barbarian support, then Barbarians are just plain out of luck.

It becomes a matter of how valuable each support building is in relation to each other to that nation, and if the nation doesn't value a role, that role has to go elsewhere.

[Thod]

I'm not getting the problem as well

I'm sure any large settlement can support some form of fighter AND magic user. If it can't, then this is a clear fail.

Will it be possible to be top tier for Necromancers, Sorcerers, Enchanters, Druids, Clerics of (insert the 100 different Golarion gods here), Two Weapon Fighters, Barbarians, Two handed Weapon Fighters, Archers, Slingers, Crossbow fighters, Rogues, Assassins, Missile Weapon Crafters, Sword Crafters, Magic item Crafters, Scroll Crafters, Potion crafters, (insert 20 more crafts here)

In my view if it can do everything of the above at top level then it is also a fail.

But all I heard is an in between.

Can you play with your friends ? It should always be possible with some compromise - unless you want to play some really fringe or extreme role. Paladin and Assassin might not go well in the same settlement.

And yes - clerics might be an issue. Asmodeus and Callistria in the same settlement is likely not possible.

[Urman]

Sort of, Wurner. But it's role/class based, not race based. It's more like a LG Paladin, an evil Assassin, a NN Druid, and a NN Barbarian can all belong to a LN town. Can they all be supported? Maybe, maybe not.

But I think I agree with you in principle - if all of those aren't supported, and playing alongside your friends is the most important thing ever, then pick a role that you can play alongside your friends. A good half of us won't have our preferred roles at the start of EE - and maybe for quite some time. Most of us will make it work - we'll pick something close and work with it.

[Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf]

Thod wrote:

I'm not getting the problem as well

I'm sure any large settlement can support some form of fighter AND magic user. If it can't, then this is a clear fail.

Will it be possible to be top tier for Necromancers, Sorcerers, Enchanters, Druids, Clerics of (insert the 100 different Golarion gods here), Two Weapon Fighters, Barbarians, Two handed Weapon Fighters, Archers, Slingers, Crossbow fighters, Rogues, Assassins, Missile Weapon Crafters, Sword Crafters, Magic item Crafters, Scroll Crafters, Potion crafters, (insert 20 more crafts here)

In my view if it can do everything of the above at top level then it is also a fail.

But all I heard is an in between.

Can you play with your friends ? It should always be possible with some compromise - unless you want to play some really fringe or extreme role. Paladin and Assassin might not go well in the same settlement.

And yes - clerics might be an issue. Asmodeus and Callistria in the same settlement is likely not possible.

I'm not understanding where all those classes could not exist in one settlement though. PFO takes its source material from Pathfinder, and I know a PFS member like yourself has had to read the books more thoroughly than myself. Why is it a NG city has individuals of every alignment and can "support" individuals of every playstyle?

[Cirolle]

As far as I understood it, you can indeed make a settlement that will SUPPORT nearly every single role.

You get support form both training and support buildings.

Nearly, every, single, role.

If we look at some of the roles, the ones you choose to miss out on, might not even fit the alignment of your settlement.
So, even closer to supporting every single role (of your settlements choosen alignment).

Here are some thoughts on that system. I will try to stay clear of the obvious ones that have already been mentioned.

If you really want a settlement that can support nearly every singly role, you will have to make some compromises.
There will be buildings that you cannot build, if you fill it all up with training and support.

As a player, you might consider the good of the whole, instead of insisting that the 3 rogues in the settlement should have a building.
You have to make a compromise here also.

You can indeed always play with friends, it is your choice if you live in the same settlement though.
This leads to some other choices.
What if your friends settlement gets attacked?
Will you try to talk the leadership of your settlement into joining that war, so you can help your friends?
They will have to make some choices if there is a lot of your friend group living in their settlement.

What if the two settlements goes to war against each other?
What will you do?
Fight your friends (could be fun actually)?
Stay out of the war, along with your friends in the other settlement?
Get your friends to convince their settlement to stop the war and you try to convince your leaders (DOWN WITH WAR! WAR KILLS! BABIES ARE CUTE!)

What if you were smart, and actually got some say in a settlement.
Maybe you and your friends holds several different POIs between you, for both cities.
If the leaders wont listen to you, you can always dedicate this to another settlement.

I really feel, that the system does promote a lot of meaningful choices.
My brother wants to play a blacksmith and I want to play a scout type.
If he ends up joining a crafting settlement, I do not expect them to cater to my scouting ways.
But I will sure come around a lot. Maybe pick up some weapons, hire some guards, take them all to my settlement, make some money, split it with my brother...

[Being]

Crash_00 wrote:

Actually I am thinking on a nation scale. If the nation already has Fighter support and doesn't see the point in Barbarian support, then Barbarians are just plain out of luck.

I believe I can foresee that in that event the Barbarians might quietly reflect and contemplate that a suitable demonstration of barbarian efficacy is in order. Or maybe not so quietly and reflectively as the mood strikes.

[Elorebaen]

Urman wrote:

But I think I agree with you in principle - if all of those aren't supported, and playing alongside your friends is the most important thing ever, then pick a role that you can play alongside your friends. A good half of us won't have our preferred roles at the start of EE - and maybe for quite some time. Most of us will make it work - we'll pick something close and work with it.

Yep.

[Being]

Thod wrote:

...compromise...

<Being bites his tongue attempting to stifle the urge to make political statements>

[Gol Phyllain]

Being wrote:

Gol Phyllain wrote:

... really? So despite my multiple posts about alternate ways to limit low rep players you assume that I am upset because im going to be a griefer and this limits me.

Not at all. I suspect you are constructing interesting use-cases but have an ulterior motive in protesting what looks like it has a chance at proving to be a problem for low rep enthusuiasts.

You may have proposed many alternate ways to limit low rep players, but even more ways to limit low rep players in other multiplayer games have historically failed miserably.

You might not see how this could work, or you might be able to see all too well how this could work out, but what I do know is that:
a. you expect to be low rep
b. you're arguing pretty hard for the currently proposed system to be scrapped.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to divine the faint suggestion of a pattern there already.

So stating that low rep players just shouldn't be able to use top tier abilites is somehow less restrictive then this support thing?

Also why do you assume that I am going to be low rep? This is news to me. Is it because I happen to want to live in the only evil city in the game? Or is it because I disagreed with your glorious leader?

[Being]

Gol Phyllain wrote:

So stating that low rep players just shouldn't be able to use top tier abilites is somehow less restrictive then this support thing?

No, players are advised up front that these are things that lead to low rep. These are ways to avoid it. Low rep has consequences. That is the nature of this world. Nobody is doing anything to those players who choose to go low rep. They are not victims they are making their choices and paying their bills.

Gol Phyllain wrote:

Also why do you assume that I am going to be low rep? This is news to me. Is it because I happen to want to live in the only evil city in the game? Or is it because I disagreed with your glorious leader?

I hadn't thought I so assumed: I believe I read you state you would be low rep. I'll go check: the community knows I have been wrong before.

Oh and before I go: Who is our leader? I don't think we have one, per se.

~~later~~ Okay I got the impression you expect to be low rep. You didn't explicitly declare it would be your intent. Yet I argue it wasn't an assumption on my part but an impression. I suspect I was not alone in my impression.

[Lord Zodd]

Well now that this has turned into some sort of "Low Rep" shenanigans I will retire from this thread.

I tried to alleviate some concerns about the fact that one Settlement can't fully support all skills, and hopefully I have. For those of you that still have concerns, I urge you to keep an open mind and see how the game actually works.

[Being]

My understanding of it is that GW doesn't want to make anything the players should make. So they aren't just cutting the low rep character off at the knees artificially. They are setting up the conditions where a player can choose to go low rep if that is his or her preference. It is something the player does to his character and not something that GW does to the player's character.

[Tork Shaw]

This thread is pretty all over the place. There are a number of different goals and agendas at play and thats making it very difficult for this to become a genuine discussion. I'm not going to wade in on any side or direction, but I am going to summarize what I think are the specific complaints and than address them.

Friends who want to play different styles/roles/alignments/reputations will NOT be able to:

a) play together : Incorrect.
Players can be members of multiple companies. Companies have the most minimal restrictions on membership, particularly non-sponsored companies. A diverse group of players could run together and even own a PoI together. Associating with players of violently opposite alignments may have implications for your own alignment, however, so Paladins and Assassins are unlikely to find it easy to work together.

b) live together : Incorrect.
A settlement can potentially support nearly EVERY role up to the max level. Members of classes will have to travel to train but will hold onto any of the skills their home settlement supports. Let me say that again - A SETTLEMENT CAN SUPPORT NEARLY EVERY ROLE UP TO THE MAX LEVEL. Players with vastly different reputations, however, will NOT be able to live at the same places - reputation will limit which settlements allow you to join.

c) Train together : Correct.
While a settlement can support nearly EVERY role it will only be possible to train a max (at the current revision) of 9. This does not affect their ability to LIVE together and get training elsewhere (see above). Players with vastly different reputations, however, will NOT be able to train at the same places - reputation will limit which settlements offer you training.

I'd also mention that the reputation system and the role/class/skill limitation system on settlements are ENTIRELY SEPARATE and designed to achieve separate goals. The reputation system is designed to discourage undesirable behaviour. The settlement limitations are designed to encourage interaction between settlements and players. These systems are not connected in the manner implied by much of the above discussion.

Hope this helps!

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

@ Tork

Thanks for the clarity. I hope this is over and everyone (that can be) is satisfied. :)

[Merkaile of Fidelis]

Good clear info; thanks!

It will be interesting to see what sort of things a settlement will have to give up to accomplish this support.

[<Magistry> Toombstone]

Tork Shaw wrote:

A settlement can potentially support nearly EVERY role up to the max level. Members of classes will have to travel to train but will hold onto any of the skills their home settlement supports. Let me say that again - A SETTLEMENT CAN SUPPORT NEARLY EVERY ROLE UP TO THE MAX LEVEL.

At what cost? How much of a settlement's DI and structure slots must they devote to achieve this? If it's *possible*. with an astronomically high cost, it doesn't solve the problem for those who are concerned.

[Crash_00]

Could you elaborate on the separation of the systems? Mainly these two things that I'm wondering.

Do higher tier buildings still require a higher minimum reputation for the settlement?

Do higher tier buildings require more DI (thus limiting how many other buildings can be higher tier)?

[Tork Shaw]

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:

Tork Shaw wrote:

A settlement can potentially support nearly EVERY role up to the max level. Members of classes will have to travel to train but will hold onto any of the skills their home settlement supports. Let me say that again - A SETTLEMENT CAN SUPPORT NEARLY EVERY ROLE UP TO THE MAX LEVEL.

At what cost? How much of a settlement's DI and structure slots must they devote to achieve this? If it's *possible*. with an astronomically high cost, it doesn't solve the problem for those who are concerned.

At the cost of other settlement options. This question feels a bit meaningless. Your settlement cannot do everything, just like your character cannot do everything. If you want to have loads of classes supported you'll have to sacrifice crafting and special upgrades. If you want to support loads of crafting you'll have to sacrifice crafting and special upgrades.

This is how the game works. If its not for you, its not for you.

[Tork Shaw]

Crash_00 wrote:

Could you elaborate on the separation of the systems? Mainly these two things that I'm wondering.

Do higher tier buildings still require a higher minimum reputation for the settlement?

Do higher tier buildings require more DI (thus limiting how many other buildings can be higher tier)?

All settlement buildings have the same reputation requirements.

Higher tier buildings cos more DI. If you want lots of high tier buildings get lots of DI. Just the same way as if you want lots of high tier skills you will needs lots of XP.

[<Magistry> Toombstone]

Tork Shaw wrote:

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:

Tork Shaw wrote:

A settlement can potentially support nearly EVERY role up to the max level. Members of classes will have to travel to train but will hold onto any of the skills their home settlement supports. Let me say that again - A SETTLEMENT CAN SUPPORT NEARLY EVERY ROLE UP TO THE MAX LEVEL.

At what cost? How much of a settlement's DI and structure slots must they devote to achieve this? If it's *possible*. with an astronomically high cost, it doesn't solve the problem for those who are concerned.

At the cost of other settlement options. This question feels a bit meaningless. Your settlement cannot do everything, just like your character cannot do everything. If you want to have loads of classes supported you'll have to sacrifice crafting and special upgrades. If you want to support loads of crafting you'll have to sacrifice crafting and special upgrades.

This is how the game works. If its not for you, its not for you.

The question is about the relative magnitude of the sacrifice, not "is there a sacrifice." We all understand that supporting a large number of classes isn't completely free.

[Lifedragn]

@ Lord Zodd - By play together, I put a strong link to collaborating towards the same goals at a Company, Settlement, AND National level all at the same time. Being in two different settlements sparks an immediate departure from that goal. However... with Tork's latest comments my fears have been put to rest.

@ Tork - Thank you for that much needed clarity. Ah the confusion general terms such as "Support" can cause when folks have attached deeper definition.

[Tork Shaw]

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:

Tork Shaw wrote:

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:

Tork Shaw wrote:

A settlement can potentially support nearly EVERY role up to the max level. Members of classes will have to travel to train but will hold onto any of the skills their home settlement supports. Let me say that again - A SETTLEMENT CAN SUPPORT NEARLY EVERY ROLE UP TO THE MAX LEVEL.

At what cost? How much of a settlement's DI and structure slots must they devote to achieve this? If it's *possible*. with an astronomically high cost, it doesn't solve the problem for those who are concerned.

At the cost of other settlement options. This question feels a bit meaningless. Your settlement cannot do everything, just like your character cannot do everything. If you want to have loads of classes supported you'll have to sacrifice crafting and special upgrades. If you want to support loads of crafting you'll have to sacrifice crafting and special upgrades.

This is how the game works. If its not for you, its not for you.

The question is about the relative magnitude of the sacrifice, not "is there a sacrifice." We all understand that supporting a large number of classes isn't completely free.

I posted 3 sample settlements previously. I forget what thread. Hopefully someone is able to link them for you. I cant be any clearer than that. If that doesnt answer your question you'll need to wait for a another blog post about settlements, which will unfortunately probably be a while now - settlement stuff is a wee ways off.

[Nightdrifter]

sample settlements

[Tork Shaw]

Nightdrifter wrote:

sample settlements

Thanks Nightdrifter!