Company vs Guild vs Settlement: Are they the same?


Pathfinder Online


So I know that Company ≠ Settlement as the hierarchy is....

Kingdom -> Settlement -> Company -> Party

Where do guilds fit in to this? Are guilds companies? Are they settlements? Does it depend???

Elucidation, if you please!

Goblin Squad Member

Guilds do not exist in PFO. You are welcome to call anything you like a guild. Goblinworks has used the term guild to express some general concepts for the existing community of gamers

Note that you will be able to belong to multiple companies (up to three) so it's likely that those attached to the guild concept will use large meta-companies to fill in the gap.

(Edit) and the PFO term is Nation, since your nation need not be a kingdom.

Goblin Squad Member

As Caldeathe said, after the end of the Land Rush, the word "Guild" has now been forever (we hope) banished from Pathfinder Online.

...and there was much rejoicing.


Ok, so but what is really confusing about that is that GW uses the term Guild to reference the Land Rush participant groups.

I want to ask in the survey I am putting together, "Are you a member of a PFO....?" But I do not know what term will be most appropriate: Company, Settlement, or Guild. I don't want to ask about all three as that would be a bit tedious.

I suppose if I use the term "Guild" most people will know what that means. The purpose of the question is to provide an indicator of the respondents level of participation at this point in time. People in Guilds/Settlements/Companies will be higher participants than those not in one.


@Jazzlvraz For real! I never like the idea of "guilds." It sounds too exclusive.


I figure it out. I'll just make it a multiple response question and allow them to check all that apply.

Thanks!

Goblin Squad Member

If you want to get technical, what we think of as "guilds" most closely relates to Companies. If you want to be really successful, you will think of your settlement (and the members of it) as a Mega-Guild.

Goblin Squad Member

What you'll want to ask about, in the wake of the Land Rush, is Settlement. That's what folks've signed on to; we're also in the process of setting up Companies for the War of the Towers during the first few months of Early Enrollment.

Caldeathe's Excellent Spreadsheet is a publicy-editable resource, where you'll find lots of info on the Settlements and Companies, including, on the later tabs, contact information for individual players.


Cool, thanks. It is worth noting that, for the time being and the time-frame of my survey, players are allowed to be members of only one company. That makes my life a *lot* easier.

Goblin Squad Member

I've made some predictions about other termnology GW has chosen being even more confusing and frustrating than the Guild Land Rush for a game without guilds.

Basically a guild from another game is going to be a company or collection of companies working closely in a coordinated way here. Settlements could be made of one giant guild or as it's turning out so far a cooperative effort between multiple; but everyone is a part of the same unit at that level too. The same will go for kingdoms.

The adjustment from most other games is having multiple levels that are a whole self-contained unit that is part of a bigger structure at the same time. A finger is made of bones and skin and nail all working together to be a finger. But that finger itself is a member of a collection of parts that forms a hand. And the hand is a collection of parts of a collection of parts that combines with other collections of parts^2 to make a body.


Yes, and the finger will never touch the elbow on its same arm (hopefully!), just like a member of a company in a settlement may never meet the leader of their settlement.

It makes sense that they would do away with guilds since they have a more realistic and meaningful system to replace it with.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

"What size of organization related to PFO are you a part of?

None
2-10
10-25
25-200
201+"

"Did that group form specifically for PFO?"

Goblin Squad Member

One settlement (as currently proposed) cannot support all the roles, so a diverse group coming into PFO together will be split between 2 (or more) settlements.

Your planned role will determine a short list of settlements with the buildings to support you on your way to rank 20 skills.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Just to make things more complicated, if they wanted to, All of the craftsmen of a particular item could form a meta-game organization say for example the Cobblers Guild. They could then use their organization as a tool to fix prices for Boots across the server and cooperatively make life very difficult for any non member boot maker. Assassination contracts could even be taken out on their rival the boot makers guild.
This would simulate the real guilds of medieval Europe.

Additionally there is at least one planned NPC faction that is an Assassins Guild.

confused yet?


@Master of Shadows: What you describe is both illegal IRL and highly detrimental to any economy. I'd be willing to bet money that GW doesn't allow that sort of behavior in their game as it would have the added issue of turning players away from the game.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

One thing that's prolonging the confusion is the fact that none of PFO's social structures have been implemented in game yet. That should change in Alpha Build 7, which is scheduled to include the first iteration of the company. Each character in Alpha 7 will be able to join one company.

I believe settlements will enter the game in EE. Each company will be able to join one settlement.

That sets up the basic structure. Each character can join a company, which operates under the aegis of a settlement.

Here's where the next level of complication sets in. Companies that join settlements are known as chartered companies. At some point (probably during EE), it may become possible to create companies that aren't bound to a settlement. These will be unchartered or non-chartered companies.

According to some old dev posts, it might be possible for each character to join one chartered company and up to two non-chartered companies. (And multiple factions, but that's another story.)

In the short term, we'll get companies. In the slightly longer term, we'll get settlements, and all of the companies will become chartered companies. Beyond that, we don't know what will actually happen. We might get unchartered companies; we might not.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

sspitfire1 wrote:
@Master of Shadows: What you describe is both illegal IRL and highly detrimental to any economy. I'd be willing to bet money that GW doesn't allow that sort of behavior in their game as it would have the added issue of turning players away from the game.

That maybe true now, but it was the prevailing social structure in European cities for centuries. Also I would not be surprised to see that settlements begin this process on their own with fixed prices for goods if you're a settlement member vs. if you're not and eventually I could easily see representatives of each settlement meeting in a Market Council to discuss prices across the board.

Goblin Squad Member

Master of Shadows wrote:
...at least one planned NPC faction that is an Assassins Guild.

Which is that, please?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Red Mantis?

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
Red Mantis?

Ah, sorry. I'd missed they'd already been announced for inclusion in PFO.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

There's also the Daggermark Assassins' Guild. They're much more local.

I don't think an assassin's guild faction has been specifically announced by GW yet. Assassination was discussed as a career and a game mechanic, along with Disguise.

Some people have proposed that unusual mechanics like Stand and Deliver, Bounty Hunting, Disguise and Assassination might be taught by factions, rather than settlement-based trainers. As far as I know, that was just fan speculation, not Word of GW.

Goblin Squad Member

Master of Shadows wrote:

Just to make things more complicated, if they wanted to, All of the craftsmen of a particular item could form a meta-game organization say for example the Cobblers Guild. They could then use their organization as a tool to fix prices for Boots across the server and cooperatively make life very difficult for any non member boot maker. Assassination contracts could even be taken out on their rival the boot makers guild.

This would simulate the real guilds of medieval Europe.

Of course, the guilds in medieval Erope also controlled the training; that won't be the case in PFO. So if the cobblers get together to fix prices, anyone can train up cobblery skills and undercut those fixed prices.

Goblin Squad Member

Red Mantis, Skinsaw Men/ Cult of Norgorber, and Daggermark assassins were all mentioned in the dev blog which described the assassination system. I expect those will support LE, NE, and CE assassins respectively.

Goblin Squad Member

sspitfire1 wrote:
@Master of Shadows: What you describe is both illegal IRL and highly detrimental to any economy. I'd be willing to bet money that GW doesn't allow that sort of behavior in their game as it would have the added issue of turning players away from the game.

It's only illegal where it's illegal. It's hardly a law of nature. And it has been practiced in many times and places and continues to be practiced today. Try getting a job in any heavily unionized occupation or one controlled by a professional association like lawyers or doctors. The facts that we don't call them guilds, and they have been successful in lobbying to entrench their protection in law as a "safety" concern doesn't change what they are.

Being an assassin or thief is also illegal in most of the world. Do you expect Goblinworks to stop anyone from playing either of those things?

Ryan has already said that spying and in-game fraud are "expected and a sign that [they] are succeeding." Why should they stop crafters from forming a union? If they charge too much, more people will train crafters and things will return to balance. If they are too successful in locking down a role, and the players don't deal with it, then GW may choose to take a hand.

(Edit: to bold relevant material)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Ryan has already said that spying and in-game fraud are "expected and a sign that [they] are succeeding." Why should they stop crafters from forming a union?

I think that might be conveying a false impression.

We want a game people care enough about winning to engage in robust espionage and sabotage. That's a sign we're succeeding, not failing.
... make it onerous to experiment with fraud
I'd rather lose one person who scammed the community, than have a community that thinks scamming is ok behavior.

Yes, spying is expected and a sign of success.

However, fraud and scams aren't acceptable, and won't be tolerated.

Goblin Squad Member

In game fraud is different than out of game fraud. Are we expecting that it's okay to force someone to give you stuff by threatening to kill them, but not okay to trick them into accepting a bad deal?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Counter-point: Price-fixing isn't fraud, or a scam. As Urman wrote, it's also unlikely tho work for long, considering that anyone can train any craft skill, without permission from the price-fixers.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

I expect that a "Guild" of crafters who wanted to corner a market would find PVP related means to enforce their will on any would be crafters who don't join them.

Edit:

I would add that in My opinion, any player made power block of this nature, and efforts made to shatter such a block would in my opinion constitute a set of meaningful interactions.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

EVE allows direct in-game fraud. A character can give any title to a contract, and it's the responsibility of other characters to verify that what's actually been placed in escrow for the contract matches the description.

As an example, I could place a contract on the market labeled "+3 long sword for 300 gold", but actually place a +1 sword in escrow.

I'm fairly certain GW is not going to make that sort of fraud mechanically possible in PFO.

On the other hand, "a bad deal" is not the same thing as fraud. If I have the only +3 long sword within a 6 hex radius, I don't think GW is going to tell me how much I can charge for it.

Charge a high price for a +3 sword? No problem. Charge a high price for a +3 sword, then deliver a +1 sword? Problem.

Goblin Squad Member

I think their plan is to avoid stuff like the spam based Jita Scammers that just abuse a problem with one of the game interfaces to try and catch people who aren't quite paying attention. The problem there is the scam is too easy to do so if you catch one person every couple of days or what not it's a good deal.

If the process for the scam is too involved to realllly make it worthwhile or common they will feel that they have mostly succeeded and only have to stamp out a problem once in awhile.


Price fixing at a settlement level or nation level is different from trying to price-fix across the board, as Shadows was stating previously.

Master of Shadows wrote:
...as a tool to fix prices for Boots across the server...

Price-fixing at a local or regional level is not unlike imposing tariffs (and is just as detrimental to the overall economy as imposing them).

Going along with Nihimon's interjection, I don't think GW will interfere in minor issues and to-be-expected competitive and anti-competitive behaviors. However, I also don't think they will allow server-level disruptions to the economic system or rampant in-game fraud without directly or indirectly intervening. It simply isn't in their best interests to allow a few bad apples to spoil the game for everyone else. Not if they don't want to see all their hard work- and everyone's generously given money- go to waste.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Another kind of EVE scam that I don't expect GW to tolerate is recruitment fraud.

"Want to join my company? It will cost you 500 gold. Thank you. Now, let's get you moved to our settlement before you formally join the company, so our enemies don't attack you on the road. Give me all your possessions, and I'll arrange for a secure caravan to transport them to the settlement." Upon receipt of gold and gear, the scammer disappears, or attacks the victim as soon as they're out of town.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know though, some things, like that example, could be dealt with by s strong player community. I could easily see Companies forming around countering/punishing scammers like that.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I think that attempted price-fixing is evidence that things are Working As Intended. I don't think any such attempts will be successful.

Goblin Squad Member

It will be hard since they can just make new characters that don't need training, not to mention the numerous anti-ganking measures in place. It could be done but it would be a significant waste of people's time to do it.

Honestly Karlbob's example is a kind of an okay scenario, at no point was it a manipulation of the game's intended mechanics or interface. You would have simply trusted someone you shouldn't have. The key to that type of thing is making the specific scam mechanically stupid so that no one bothers with it or create an atmosphere where it's unlikely that someone would legitimately operate like that and if someone did try it would immediately be of suspicion.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

sspitfire1 wrote:
You know though, some things, like that example, could be dealt with by s strong player community. I could easily see Companies forming around countering/punishing scammers like that.

That will help, but judicious banning should also help potential scammers to realize that such behavior won't be tolerated in PFO.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Duffy wrote:

It will be hard since they can just make new characters that don't need training, not to mention the numerous anti-ganking measures in place. It could be done but it would be a significant waste of people's time to do it.

Honestly Karlbob's example is a kind of an okay scenario, at no point was it a manipulation of the game's intended mechanics or interface. You would have simply trusted someone you shouldn't have. The key to that type of thing is making the specific scam mechanically stupid so that no one bothers with it or create an atmosphere where it's unlikely that someone would legitimately operate like that and if someone did try it would immediately be of suspicion.

Which example, the contract scam or the recruitment scam? The contract scam, if it's mechanically possible in PFO, is definitely a manipulation of a game mechanic. The recruitment scam is an abuse of player trust, rather than game mechanics.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sspitfire1 wrote:
You know though, some things, like that example, could be dealt with by s strong player community. I could easily see Companies forming around countering/punishing scammers like that.

There will be plenty of people working against in-game crime. Hopefully the guide program will reduce it. If settlements are up-front (both in and out of game) about who the contacts are and the process for joining the settlement, other scams will be more difficult.

The biggest problem in some of them is that today's scammer and yesterday's needn't be the same character.

One thing our settlements could do is make it a policy that official contacts must carry a noble title. If that is implemented by all settlements, and well advertised in and out of the game, it will alleviate some things. We could even crowdforge / ask Goblinworks for that to be a game feature. With each settlement able to assign two or three people who will carry an official designation for being contacts for new players.

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
Duffy wrote:

It will be hard since they can just make new characters that don't need training, not to mention the numerous anti-ganking measures in place. It could be done but it would be a significant waste of people's time to do it.

Honestly Karlbob's example is a kind of an okay scenario, at no point was it a manipulation of the game's intended mechanics or interface. You would have simply trusted someone you shouldn't have. The key to that type of thing is making the specific scam mechanically stupid so that no one bothers with it or create an atmosphere where it's unlikely that someone would legitimately operate like that and if someone did try it would immediately be of suspicion.

Which example, the contract scam or the recruitment scam? The contract scam, if it's mechanically possible in PFO, is definitely a manipulation of a game mechanic. The recruitment scam is an abuse of player trust, rather than game mechanics.

Bah knew I should have hit quote, I was referencing the Recruitment one.

I'm pro-banning scammers I just understand that it's a losing battle once your population hit's a certain level and has a lot of grey areas outside of very specific examples.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
In game fraud is different than out of game fraud. Are we expecting that it's okay to force someone to give you stuff by threatening to kill them, but not okay to trick them into accepting a bad deal?

That's exactly what I'm expecting, actually.


Nihimon wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
In game fraud is different than out of game fraud. Are we expecting that it's okay to force someone to give you stuff by threatening to kill them, but not okay to trick them into accepting a bad deal?
That's exactly what I'm expecting, actually.

Yeah that is basically the whole idea behind the Stand and Deliver system for banditry. Stand and Deliver at least gives the "victim" options, like fighting or giving in. Scamming, on the other hand, involves taking advantage of another player's lack of knowledge/inexperience without them being aware of it- until after the scam is complete.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
In game fraud is different than out of game fraud. Are we expecting that it's okay to force someone to give you stuff by threatening to kill them, but not okay to trick them into accepting a bad deal?
That's exactly what I'm expecting, actually.

I hope you're right, but I don't expect it. It seems to me a strange thing to decide which forms of victimization of characters by characters are actively encouraged while other forms are actively discouraged.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
It seems to me a strange thing to decide which forms of victimization of characters by characters are actively encouraged while other forms are actively discouraged.

sspitfire1 nailed it above. Scams and Fraud aren't character-on-character, they're player-on-player.

Grand Lodge

sspitfire1 wrote:
You know though, some things, like that example, could be dealt with by s strong player community. I could easily see Companies forming around countering/punishing scammers like that.

What you see as scamming, others see as capitalism.

I can tell you one thing for sure about this topic, and that's this kind of behavior is already, and will continue to be a feature of the social net this game is building. Discussions of exclusive price contracts and trade agreements are going to be a dominating feature of the PFO economy.

Besides that, cornering a market is going to be a LOT harder than in other games where you can simply camp out a central unmoving node of a rare resource. The gathering and harvesting nodes in PFO intend to be balance pretty much all around the board, and with the possible exception of Starmetal (Which can be substituted for with NPC drops) Hexes and Companies wholly dedicated to the protection and exclusive harvest therein.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Company vs Guild vs Settlement: Are they the same? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online