Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello my friends and fellow patrons of the world.
Under the current implementation of the game, we have decided that we will not be joining a settlement for the start of EE. This is not an anti-settlement decision.
.
.
Why did we decide this? -
1 Having had discussions with a great number of settlements, it became apparent that many were nothing more than an extension of the “owners” personal plans. Thereby treating the settlement as nothing more than a recruiting scheme and base of operations. Often the identity of companies wanting to be independent and while existing would be in name only. That company would be swallowed up by the rules and restrictions bound to them by the owners of the settlement. Naturally this is their right and I would not deny them this. However, it is not for us.
2 We wanted to avoid any permanent or unforeseen entanglements right out of the starting gate. While this may put us in a more precarious position as first, we are confident of our ability to shape our destiny without the need for a settlement immediately.
3 This affords us the most neutral stance a company of our stature could desire in conducting business with other entities.
4 We sense there will be many dying settlements and companies during the first few months of EE. While we hope we are wrong, we must place ourselves in a position of action rather than reaction.
5 There are a few other reasons, but we'll let them rest for now as not to ruffle feathers.
.
.
What does this mean? -
1 It gives us the flexibility to fully explore other aspects of the game that might not be immediately apparent when joining a settlement. As we are fully aware of the “planned” implementations that could alter our position regarding settlements in the future, we will endeavor to promote the agenda of a company that is independent of the structure one would find in settlements right now.
2 It means a new way of thinking. An exciting adventure outside the confines of a permanent settlement. Between our nomadic merchants, roaming mercenaries and master crafters we will become a much sought after commodity. We shall become the force multiplier a struggling settlement may need, or an added part of an equation a warring faction had not factored in. We will appear, then disappear leaving a mark that forces the world to pause for a breath.
.
.
The appeal -
We call forth any and all players who have the itch of playing the odds. Of exploring the unknown, and carving out for themselves a piece of the world.
Visit our forums to read up on our internal structure. I'm pretty sure you'll like what are setting up here.
Allegiant Gemstone Company Forums
Join us on Teamspeak for a conversation about the company and your desires.
Allegiant Gemstone Main Page (click Join TS on left side of page)
PM me in game as an alternate discussion method.
.
.
It's not personal, it's just business.
.
.
As a company, we are open for business.
.
.
Respectfully
Atheory
Allegiant Gemstone Company
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you going to try to capture towers?
If you are not affiliated with a settlement then your capture window is going to be open all day. If you do plan to capture towers how do you plan to defend them?
Whether you choose a formal alliance or not, which settlements will you frequent for training?
Which Auction House will you use? I've already seen TEO in General chat belittling auction houses in favor of settlement to settlement mass resource trading. How will you compete with these types of agreements?
Also, will you uphold your reputation of standing on top of our poor innocent shiny pates?!?
:)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh Haagen, one of my favorite people in game, if you were to join us I could answer all those questions.
I will answer your last question plainly and clearly, yes! It gives me such enjoyment.
As to the other questions I will simply state there is a plan, and there is a will. We do not do this blindly nor recklessly. Some things will fall into our lap, others will be made possible through our own design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If only I could join more than one company I would. You aren't the home for the refuse of other companies are you? Alas as you put it I'm a skirt wearin' Fancy Lad.
When your prodigal company finally does decide to settle down I hope to see you allying with Stoneroot in one form or another, someday.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you capture Towers, the only effect will be denying someone else the benefit of your Towers. Without a Settlement, your Company will gain no benefits from holding Towers. Therefore, if you capture Towers, it will be an act of aggression, either to benefit another Settlement, or simply to disadvantage a Settlement.
Weakening a Settlement without a contract, when nobody will benefit? That's personal animosity, not business. Since you say it is business, one must assume that the attack is being performed under contract. Contracting to attack one side of a conflict is a very specific kind of business: mercenary work.
My guess is that "It's just business" will be met by one or more of three different reactions:
"Of course it's business. How much would it cost to hire you away from your current employer?"
"I understand. Business is business. My counterattacks will cease when you're no longer employed by my enemy."
"Business, shmizness. You took my Towers. That makes you my enemy, and now I'm gonna kill you!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Karlbob -
We are fully aware of the rules regarding towers, and their implications. We do appreciate you pointing that out, we never shun those who seek to assist others in any capacity.
I cannot assume what people will say, how they will think or act. Nor do we intend to. As for others and the aspect of "just business", well that not be seen as such by them, but for us, it is always "just business" and that is all that matters.
We have no illusions to our chosen path and we will let our deeds showcase just what type of company we are in the eyes of the beholder.
@Cheatle -
Thank you for the sentiment, while we confess that not all settlements were included in our previous efforts, it can be said that not one factor, settlement or person solely influenced our decision. Also, that new decisions can and will be made in the future as nothing is set in stone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Karlbob -
We are fully aware of the rules regarding towers, and their implications. We do appreciate you pointing that out, we never shun those who seek to assist others in any capacity.
I cannot assume what people will say, how they will think or act. Nor do we intend to. As for others and the aspect of "just business", well that not be seen as such by them, but for us, it is always "just business" and that is all that matters.
We have no illusions to our chosen path and we will let our deeds showcase just what type of company we are in the eyes of the beholder.
@Cheatle -
Thank you for the sentiment, while we confess that not all settlements were included in our previous efforts, it can be said that not one factor, settlement or person solely influenced our decision. Also, that new decisions can and will be made in the future as nothing is set in stone.
Atheory, I wish you good luck with your business. Having destabilizing forces available for hire should keep the wars of PFO lively. Too much stability leads to Cold Wars, and those are boring.
Also, since I was the one involved in the conversation in general about AHs Haagen referenced, I'd like to defend myself. First, as anyone who saw the conversation should have seen, I never once belittled the AH system. I also never "favored" settlement-level trading (although I actually do, I never mentioned my prefences). What I DID say was that, for settlement-level trading, the AH will be skipped entirely. The AH has many uses...that is just not one of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, since I was the one involved in the conversation in general about AHs Haagen referenced, I'd like to defend myself. First, as anyone who saw the conversation should have seen, I never once belittled the AH system. I also never "favored" settlement-level trading (although I actually do, I never mentioned my prefences). What I DID say was that, for settlement-level trading, the AH will be skipped entirely. The AH has many uses...that is just not one of them.
I apologize if my tone implied the Imperial Death March. I was guilty of eating sour grapes today.
I'm not sure if this conversation is appropriate to the AGC news or if it belongs in its own thread. I am intrigued by the AGC so please accept this thread bump as a sign of respect.
How will non-affiliated companies compete with 'settlement-level trading' (1K+ strip mining by dedicated gatherers/refiners)?
Will non-affiliated companies have to resort to covert dealings to make ends meet? Will settlements feed these mercenaries to bypass non aggression pacts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you capture Towers, the only effect will be denying someone else the benefit of your Towers. Without a Settlement, your Company will gain no benefits from holding Towers. Therefore, if you capture Towers, it will be an act of aggression, either to benefit another Settlement, or simply to disadvantage a Settlement.
Interestingly, it's not entirely clear to me that a company needs to be "members" of a settlement in order to pledge towers to it. Ryan recently clarified that settlement membership and company membership are intended to be disconnected. A strong enough company that wants to hold towers has a decent bargaining chip with which to assure themselves access to facilities without necessarily being settlement members.
My point was that, if settlements A and B have a trade agreement, and the terms are, say, for settlement A to trade 1k coal to B for 1k iron, then they won't transport their goods to midpoint market and then put everything onto an AH instead of trading it to each other. They would at that point simply trade directly. The trade partners wouldn't be using the Ah, because both must fulfill the terms of the trade agreement...each settlement getting the resources they want isn't all that matters, because they need to get those resources from each other. That's why it's trading.
That being said, I believe it stands to reason that non-affiliated companies can't begin to compete with the manpower of large settlements, and thus can't take part in such large scale trading. But if they specialize, they can offer a unique service, or at least be good at a non-unique service, and therefore have something to trade for the resources they need.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That being said, I believe it stands to reason that non-affiliated companies can't begin to compete with the manpower of large settlements, and thus can't take part in such large scale trading. But if they specialize, they can offer a unique service, or at least be good at a non-unique service, and therefore have something to trade for the resources they need.
Allegiant hasn't said never, just "for the start of EE." I think in time they'll have little choice but to have strong ties to a settlement. Whether that is one that exists today, or one opened up by the increasing map or the disintegration of another settlement is another story. We don't even know when bulk resources will come into play.
Yea caldeathe...my post was purely in response to Haagen's questions, wasn't intended to be about AGC at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point was that, if settlements A and B have a trade agreement, and the terms are, say, for settlement A to trade 1k coal to B for 1k iron, then they won't transport their goods to midpoint market and then put everything onto an AH instead of trading it to each other. They would at that point simply trade directly. The trade partners wouldn't be using the Ah, because both must fulfill the terms of the trade agreement...each settlement getting the resources they want isn't all that matters, because they need to get those resources from each other. That's why it's trading.
That being said, I believe it stands to reason that non-affiliated companies can't begin to compete with the manpower of large settlements, and thus can't take part in such large scale trading. But if they specialize, they can offer a unique service, or at least be good at a non-unique service, and therefore have something to trade for the resources they need.
You have two separate systems competing with one another. One is a centralized settlement leadership that asks its members to pledge x number of resources together so that they may be traded with other settlements. The other is a decentralized auction house where members freely place their goods on the market for others to bid on.
Both systems will be competing for player time and attention. Many players may choose to place their resources in AHs instead of giving them to their settlement leaders. How does the availability of goods on the auction house influence settlement trade agreements?
What is the advantage of trade partners not using the auction house? Why choose one over the other? Does the current state of popularity for either system influence your decision?
And how do players who do not have strong ties to settlement leaders compete?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you capture Towers, the only effect will be denying someone else the benefit of your Towers. Without a Settlement, your Company will gain no benefits from holding Towers. Therefore, if you capture Towers, it will be an act of aggression, either to benefit another Settlement, or simply to disadvantage a Settlement.Interestingly, it's not entirely clear to me that a company needs to be "members" of a settlement in order to pledge towers to it. Ryan recently clarified that settlement membership and company membership are intended to be disconnected. A strong enough company that wants to hold towers has a decent bargaining chip with which to assure themselves access to facilities without necessarily being settlement members.
Actually, that's a good point. It still seems more likely to me that "it's just business" means "somebody hired us to take your Towers away."
Also, I believe that for the moment, for a Company to pledge their Towers to a Settlement is the definition of being a member of that Settlement. I doubt that will change before the War of Towers ends.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, that's a good point. It still seems more likely to me that "it's just business" means "somebody hired us to take your Towers away."If you capture Towers, the only effect will be denying someone else the benefit of your Towers. Without a Settlement, your Company will gain no benefits from holding Towers. Therefore, if you capture Towers, it will be an act of aggression, either to benefit another Settlement, or simply to disadvantage a Settlement.Interestingly, it's not entirely clear to me that a company needs to be "members" of a settlement in order to pledge towers to it. Ryan recently clarified that settlement membership and company membership are intended to be disconnected. A strong enough company that wants to hold towers has a decent bargaining chip with which to assure themselves access to facilities without necessarily being settlement members.
You sure? because we won't be telling anyone anything! :)
Psychological warfare!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, that's a good point. It still seems more likely to me that "it's just business" means "somebody hired us to take your Towers away."If you capture Towers, the only effect will be denying someone else the benefit of your Towers. Without a Settlement, your Company will gain no benefits from holding Towers. Therefore, if you capture Towers, it will be an act of aggression, either to benefit another Settlement, or simply to disadvantage a Settlement.Interestingly, it's not entirely clear to me that a company needs to be "members" of a settlement in order to pledge towers to it. Ryan recently clarified that settlement membership and company membership are intended to be disconnected. A strong enough company that wants to hold towers has a decent bargaining chip with which to assure themselves access to facilities without necessarily being settlement members.
You sure? because we won't be telling anyone anything! :)
Psychological warfare!
Am I sure? No, not at all. I specifically said "X seems more likely to mean Y", not "X means Y, beyond a doubt", because I'm not sure.
The psychological warfare ops will probably be more fun than the sword-swinging kind, sometimes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am considering forming an unaffiliated free company at EE myself.
The current company/settlement system is somewhat counter-intuitive for "free companies".
My understanding ( I am happy to be corrected if wrong) :
IDEALLY:
- As a free company you should be able to assign towers as and when you wish potentially working for several settlements at once with contracts in different parts of the map assigning the towers as you acquire them.
- It should also be possible to take a tower and then assign it to the highest bidder as you see fit once you contact likely 'purchasers'.
- It should be possible to take and hold towers for "ransom" retaining them in your company name until the adjoining settlement either force-ably retakes them or pays you to transfer them back.
CURRENTLY:
You must apply to assign your towers to one particular settlement and they need to manually approve your application.
The current system is unsuitable to unaligned companies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...settlement membership and company membership are intended to be disconnected.I think it may be more a case of "not required to be connected", a subtle difference.
Plan: Yes. Being a member of a Company and being a member of a Settlement are not linked.
The plan is that people who are in different settlements because of training, but want to play together, can still be in a company together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It still seems more likely to me that "it's just business" means "somebody hired us to take your Towers away."
Not necessarily about taking something away from somebody else. Towers are a commodity, just like iron and coal. If you have some of something valuable, maybe somebody else will pay for it? Capitalism boyos!
Anyway though, personally, I think the idea of role-playing a sort of merchant company (a la the Hanseatic League of sorts) would be quite fun. Mercantilism isn't all about peddling your wares, sometimes you have trade wars and have to enforce contracts at the point of a sword.
Loose Ties
I'm starting to think that looser affiliations in the beginning may offer a nice chance to really feel around how the game flow develops, and how other organizations operate and what they're about.
Companies are bound to have differences and split off, you're already seeing people posting in the forum about leaving settlements and such, and my gut says leaving once having become so married is bound to be more painful, than if it were a more loose arrangement.
Try Before You Buy
It's just hard to really get a feel for how people and groups really are until you've spent some significant time with them. Having some nice chats is good in all, but I think most people would like to take a test drive before buying a car.
The thing is, now the game is finally just barely getting started. Once it gets real and fights over towers and trade really start in earnest, we'll actually get a chance to see people's and groups' true colors.
Personalities
So, I think that is part of the place where I'm personally coming from. It's not about dismissing one company or another for one reason or so.
Just that for some types of players it may be too premature to give up a bit of their distinctiveness in order to pledge to a group at this juncture, especially if there may not yet be a clear benefit to that individual to outweigh the collectivism or top-down control.
My point was that, if settlements A and B have a trade agreement, and the terms are, say, for settlement A to trade 1k coal to B for 1k iron, then they won't transport their goods to midpoint market and then put everything onto an AH instead of trading it to each other. They would at that point simply trade directly. The trade partners wouldn't be using the Ah, because both must fulfill the terms of the trade agreement...each settlement getting the resources they want isn't all that matters, because they need to get those resources from each other. That's why it's trading.
That being said, I believe it stands to reason that non-affiliated companies can't begin to compete with the manpower of large settlements, and thus can't take part in such large scale trading. But if they specialize, they can offer a unique service, or at least be good at a non-unique service, and therefore have something to trade for the resources they need.
You have two separate systems competing with one another. One is a centralized settlement leadership that asks its members to pledge x number of resources together so that they may be traded with other settlements. The other is a decentralized auction house where members freely place their goods on the market for others to bid on.
Both systems will be competing for player time and attention. Many players may choose to place their resources in AHs instead of giving them to their settlement leaders. How does the availability of goods on the auction house influence settlement trade agreements?
What is the advantage of trade partners not using the auction house? Why choose one over the other? Does the current state of popularity for either system influence your decision?
And how do players who do not have strong ties to settlement leaders compete?
From my experience in TEO, the two systems don't compete as much as you'd think. This may be in large part due to our size and crafting ability, but a centralized system where people hand over the resources/recipes they don't need and get gear in return has been monstrously efficient. AHs could stand a better chance with a few improvements. For one, AHs need to be more regularly stocked to provide incentive for people to use them. Another constraining factor is that AHs are annoying to use, and you currently can't view information of other AHs (I know ryan has this planned).
Availability of goods on local AHs certainly affects trade agreements...if group A needs a bunch of coal, and there's a bunch on the local AH, great. The issue with that though, is you never know how much will be on the AH, and a local AH should suffer from the same geographical weaknesses that a nearby settlement suffers from, in this example the nearest coal sources being far away. A trade agreement is generally stable, for as long as political winds don't shift and your partner doesn't find a better source of what you're providing. It's all about procuring the most reliable sources of resources to meet the needs of your settlement, and trade agreements often strengthen ties among partners.
By not using the AH, I mean, if groups A and B have an agreement to meet in city Y on a certain day each week with the resources in hand, you'll just open a trade window and be on your way. There's nothing saying people engaging in trade can't use the AH at all, and a trade agreement may not be bringing in more resources than you can get through the AH, but trade agreements have the aforementioned advantages of stability. Even if you pick up a ton of cheap coal on a local Ah, enough to meet your needs for that week, you'd still continue with the trade like normal, because it's a long-term advantage.
As for choosing one over the other...the sheer efficiency of a centralized system is unmatched, but not all groups will have the size or organization to make it work, and players have to actually be willing to hand over their resources to make it work. That's more a matter of reliably crafting them gear...if they can hand over their resources to someone and receive the gear they need reliably, I find most people are willing to take part.
Popularity of either system means nothing to me, but as an aside it seems to me that a majority have chosen a decentralized system, at least for alpha.
As for players who don't have strong ties to settlement leaders...I assume you mean how do companies without strong ties to a settlement compete? The short answer is they don't. The long answer is it depends on what you mean by "compete." If you mean how can they reach the same level of crafting power or trade influence, then they simply can't, and there's no reason they should be able to. If you mean, how do they get the resources/gear they need, then the answer is they specialize. They become among the best for a certain craft, they become the best fighters, they become the best at *something*, or close to it. They then have a service they can offer to the larger global market. If they want to just do everything, then they won't be competitors...that's a valid play-style, but you can't expect to be small and generalized *and* competitive on a larger market.
I hope that answers some of your questions Haagen, and if you want to discuss further please pm me...I'd like to give Atheory his thread back :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My questions are very open ended and intended for all strategists to ponder, Fierywind. For example you theorize that players handing over their found goods to a leader for centralized pricing helps with stability. Yet the very nature of the first year of early enrollment will make resource availability, crafting times, experience spending, playstyle and item value highly volatile from patch to patch. People may be less willing to part with their spoils as easily post Alpha, and currently only an extremely small group of players are dedicating themselves to massive resource gathering. Once the game launches the playing field will change dramatically.
I'd love to hear answers from AGC, but they seem to be holding their cards close...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...settlement membership and company membership are intended to be disconnected.I think it may be more a case of "not required to be connected", a subtle difference.Plan: Yes. Being a member of a Company and being a member of a Settlement are not linked.The plan is that people who are in different settlements because of training, but want to play together, can still be in a company together.
I'll bet we're not disagreeing with one another. I only wanted to make sure that readers don't think you're required to be in a Settlement unrelated to your Company, as I was afraid "intended to be disconnected" might be read by some of the more-literal folks we know.
He openly asked questions, and I didn't want to appear to be ignoring questions I'm openly asked...but I appreciate you making assumptions about my "true colors" :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fierywind a couple of comments from my personal experience in Alpha:
AH SYSTEM
The AH system as well as being clunky and inefficient is completely underutilized. I was able as part of a very small group of 2 or 3 crafters to completely strip the TK auction house of any usable resources several times a day and would have bought more.
The only stuff I did not buy out regularly was occasional outrageously priced items like 30 c for one single coal when an entire suit of +0 heavy armor sold for 50 or 80c. When we moved south temporarily the HF and KP Auction houses were basically empty.
SETTLEMENT BASED
The settlement based centralized system depends entirely on the mood and goodwill of the settlement leadership. If the leadership are "too busy in real life" or "really only want to play weekends" or "will come and play once we are a bit further into EE" or simply ignore requests from members who are not part of their in group they play TT games or WoW or are on Teamspeak with or whatever - then no matter how keen and organized you are as a individual or small company you are going to be severely disadvantaged.
This will be particularly a problem if the settlement leaders have not ever taken on guild leadership roles before and do not have any idea of the immense time and energy commitment even a minor role in a MMO guild can become. (Because of past experience at this and the fact I am currently both working full time and studying full time I have been very careful not to take on such a role in PFO myself. )
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
it became apparent that many were nothing more than an extension of the “owners” personal plans. Thereby treating the settlement as nothing more than a recruiting scheme and base of operations. Often the identity of companies wanting to be independent and while existing would be in name only. That company would be swallowed up by the rules and restrictions bound to them by the owners of the settlement.
I hope that this was not the impression that I created when describing Aragon.
We actually pride ourselves on allowing our sponsored companies to retain more than just their name, but almost complete freedom of action and leadership as well.
We only have a few rules:
1. Loyalty based on growing friendship
2. Common Defense of Settlement
3. No Griefing (based on our definition of it).
As for your Original Post, I wish you luck in your endeavors. The UNC had considered, for much of our early days, of being unattached to any settlement.
Unfortunately, GW has reiterated their plans to make that a non viable choice in the mid term and certainly not in the long term.
Unaffiliated companies will only be able to train in NPC settlements (and that will be limited to low level training).
You may on the other hand be able to join a settlement for a limited duration (ie contract) and thereby gain access to training. If this becomes a viable option, then I can see that as an optimal choice for the UNC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
We don't think bad of anyone or any group. And it was that reason we elected to keep the names of those we talked to anonymous. While we can't prevent others from coming forward as if we somehow pointed a finger at them even though we did no such thing.
It was really a decision that we felt best for the company. Yes various discussions did influence that decision in some way or another, but take heart that our decision should in no way be taken as an a rebuke to anyone's settlement and or company, or the discussions that took place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unfortunately, GW has reiterated their plans to make that a non viable choice in the mid term and certainly not in the long term.
Unaffiliated companies will only be able to train in NPC settlements (and that will be limited to low level training).
You may on the other hand be able to join a settlement for a limited duration (ie contract) and thereby gain access to training. If this becomes a viable option, then I can see that as an optimal choice for the UNC.
Regardless of GWs plans the dysfunctional and un-utilised AH means when you are based in a settlement you become totally dependent on the current mood and level of interest of the settlement leaders and if they happen to be off watching the US grand slam this week then too bad.
You can direct trade far better without settlement affiliations. At this stage of the game I am coming to the conclusion you are better off not in a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of GWs plans the dysfunctional and un-utilised AH means when you are based in a settlement you become totally dependent on the current mood and level of interest of the settlement leaders and if they happen to be off watching the US grand slam this week then too bad.
You can direct trade far better without settlement affiliations. At this stage of the game I am coming to the conclusion you are better off not in a settlement.
Quite honestly, I couldn't care less about Auction Houses. I very, very rarely ever use(d) them in any MMO I have played in the past (EVE being the only exception).
Even with a settlement, I would still prefer to use player-to-player trade. Besides the AH interface is ridiculous. Why do we have to manually go through every possible item type, just to find ones that have available items for sale? Just show what is for sale, by item type.
If I want a Two-Handed Sword, let me click the filter and up comes every 2-H sword available for purchase.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It still seems more likely to me that "it's just business" means "somebody hired us to take your Towers away."Not necessarily about taking something away from somebody else. Towers are a commodity, just like iron and coal. If you have some of something valuable, maybe somebody else will pay for it? Capitalism boyos!
Anyway though, personally, I think the idea of role-playing a sort of merchant company (a la the Hanseatic League of sorts) would be quite fun. Mercantilism isn't all about peddling your wares, sometimes you have trade wars and have to enforce contracts at the point of a sword.
Loose Ties
I'm starting to think that looser affiliations in the beginning may offer a nice chance to really feel around how the game flow develops, and how other organizations operate and what they're about.Companies are bound to have differences and split off, you're already seeing people posting in the forum about leaving settlements and such, and my gut says leaving once having become so married is bound to be more painful, than if it were a more loose arrangement.
Try Before You Buy
It's just hard to really get a feel for how people and groups really are until you've spent some significant time with them. Having some nice chats is good in all, but I think most people would like to take a test drive before buying a car.The thing is, now the game is finally just barely getting started. Once it gets real and fights over towers and trade really start in earnest, we'll actually get a chance to see people's and groups' true colors.
Personalities
So, I think that is part of the place where I'm personally coming from. It's not about dismissing one company or another for one reason or so.Just that for some types of players it may be too premature to give up a bit of their distinctiveness in order to pledge to a group at this juncture, especially if there may not yet be a clear benefit to that individual to outweigh the collectivism or top-down control.
Very well said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With respect to Auction Houses, I expect they won't have much on them until folks have surplus goods to post. Until the initial demand for Recipes and Resources is sated, and reliable supply chains exist, it will be much more efficient to simply pool all resources for a Settlement in order to gear folks up for the stat of the War of Towers.
I am hopeful the devs gives us some kind of shared storage for this, but if they don't there will simply be more Settlement Bankbots standing around with shared login information.
Well Kabal (Stoneroot) wishes you the best of luck. I understand you wants for remaining independent. I think they will be just fine. They are already well known and they aren't massive or midsize by any stretch of the word.
I could see them obtaining a settlement when OE hits with little to no problem as long as they continue down the path you are now.
Best of luck Allegiant Gemstone!
@Bluddwolf:
Unaffiliated companies will only be able to train in NPC settlements (and that will be limited to low level training).
Currently, pledging a company to a settlement only creates a tie of that company's held towers to that settlement's holdings and training level.
It apparently has no impact, nor creates any restrictions on where you can train.
And based on what Ryan said here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rmds?Can-players-not-in-a-company-join-a-playe r#9
Can players not in a company, join a player settlement? If yes, do they have to apply to join the settlement, as companies have to do? Or, do they even need to join, can they just train there if they want?--
Today:
No. There is nothing in the game but Companies now. Settlement management is a position associated with a member of a Company.
Plan:
Yes. Being a member of a Company and being a member of a Settlement are not linked.
- I take it from this that a company being unaffiliated with a settlement will not prevent an individual member of that company from joining a specific settlement in order to train. (when players joining settlements is added)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf:
Unaffiliated companies will only be able to train in NPC settlements (and that will be limited to low level training).Currently, pledging a company to a settlement only creates a tie of that company's held towers to that settlement's holdings and training level.
It apparently has no impact, nor creates any restrictions on where you can train.
And based on what Ryan said here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rmds?Can-players-not-in-a-company-join-a-playe r#9- I take it from this that a company being unaffiliated with a settlement will not prevent an individual member of that company from joining a specific settlement in order to train. (when players joining settlements is added)
Can players not in a company, join a player settlement? If yes, do they have to apply to join the settlement, as companies have to do? Or, do they even need to join, can they just train there if they want?--
Today:
No. There is nothing in the game but Companies now. Settlement management is a position associated with a member of a Company.
Plan:
Yes. Being a member of a Company and being a member of a Settlement are not linked.
That's not a super clear explanation but last I heard the long term scheme was either personal membership or sponsored company membership. You could only belong to one settlement through either method, thus their could be some limitations on your company membership options.
Currently and probably at the start of EE there will only be sponsored company membership. Now at this exact moment nothing prevents you from walking into any settlement and accessing the trainers, but GW has said that remedying that is in their more immediate list of things to do.
The other concern is that without settlement membership you will not have support for tier 2+ skills and thus cannot use them. This won't be an issue at the start of EE but will become one at some point in the first couple of months, I'm sure someone who has been number crunching can give you a better estimate of when that will matter.
The game is very heavily designed to encourage players to join settlements, nomadic companies may be possible but it will probably be very arduous and non-optimal by design, and that's before you even get into the social issues.