Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Call up the Militia!

Wyborn Cathmor
Should there be a way for a settlement/company to call up militia/mercenaries that would not normally be part of that settlement/company for the purpose of feuds/wars?

For example, in Keeper's Pass we have the Ring of Steel. They are intended to be the militant arm of the Pass's defense. Should the be able to pull other Keeper's Pass citizens into their company for the purpose of attack/defense of assets?

What I would like to see is a way to do this that does not necessitate the leaving of one company to temporarily join another but a system that adds others to a specific settlement/company temporarily so as to not jack up influence.

Now that being said each militia/mercenary member added to the company should increase the influence that has to be spent for the feud/war. This would simulate a settlement spending additional resources to call up additional soldiers. It would also be limited to adding extra bodies only if there is enough available influence to do so.

Thoughts? Questions if I was being unclear?
Wyborn Cathmor of Keeper's Pass
"The first gift you ever receive is your family. We all grow from the seeds of our parents' plant."
-Parables of Erastil
Duffy Swiftshadow
+1

I would love something like this to be available as some sort of option for a contract that makes jumping around unnecessary or no longer ideal. Thinking a way to piggy back on someone else's feud/war and give them all the mechanical benefits of your participation while you pay some fraction of the cost with influence/DI/or whatever. The current layout of company vs company just doesn't work for alliances or for mercenaries. (And I've only had one incident of experience with it, it's definitely a total mess)
Baron Malthius
Wyborn Cathmor
Should there be a way for a settlement/company to call up militia/mercenaries that would not normally be part of that settlement/company for the purpose of feuds/wars?

For example, in Keeper's Pass we have the Ring of Steel. They are intended to be the militant arm of the Pass's defense. Should the be able to pull other Keeper's Pass citizens into their company for the purpose of attack/defense of assets?

What I would like to see is a way to do this that does not necessitate the leaving of one company to temporarily join another but a system that adds others to a specific settlement/company temporarily so as to not jack up influence.

Now that being said each militia/mercenary member added to the company should increase the influence that has to be spent for the feud/war. This would simulate a settlement spending additional resources to call up additional soldiers. It would also be limited to adding extra bodies only if there is enough available influence to do so.

Thoughts? Questions if I was being unclear?

So if I understand correctly, the new mechanic would be something akin to an option to add other companies before the feud begins (sort of like secondary detachments) and adjust the influence cost calculation to make it cost somewhat more?

If that is the case I like it. Perhaps an idea for implementing it is only the main company can do things like capturing stuff, (or all the companies can contribute but only the main company takes it. whichever works better mechanically) Beyond that all participating companies partake in the fighting and can target the company getting feuded. A really good advantage to doing this would be the secondary companies would then be able to participate in the feud without reputation loss. It could kill multiple birds with one stone.

The secondary companies can pay the additional influence cost which should be somewhat less than if they did a straight up counter feud to provide more incentive to use it.

I think this is a great idea and a way to make things a lot smoother for feuding. I think it definitely something we should push for.

Edit: This could also be work well not just for the current mechanics but also going forward post EE10 as well.
Quijenoth Starkiller
Before you consider this lets take a look at the future plan (as how I think it will work)

  • Right now feuds are company vs company. The PvP should be focused on the holdings that company holds.
  • Settlement vs settlement is planned and will likely involve prolonged wars between all settlements involved.
  • Alignments, once implemented will allow for a company to assist and allied company with minimum rep loss compared to the current rep loss.

Your idea is valid but probably not worth the resource time if at a later date it will be automatically implemented with the much larger plan.

Now what I think your idea would definitely work for is if your settlement wanted to offer its services to ANY company. it would certainly be advantageous to non-combatant companies and likewise quite profitable for the mercs smile
Quijenoth Starkiller Viceroy of Callambea
Company Leader of Beyond the Grave - www.beyond-pfo.com
Crafting Planner
Midnight
The blob is already too powerful. There's a reason a 200 man company is PURPOSELY not as good as twenty 10 man companies, for max rep purposes.

If people want a blob, put (and keep) all your guys in one company and take the hit on max influence.

Allowing companies to min/max the max influence cap and still blob in to other people's feuds is against the obvious design intention.

At least with company hopping there can be penalties to max influence and with 3rd party feud interference there's rep costs.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Baron Malthius
Quijenoth Starkiller
Before you consider this lets take a look at the future plan (as how I think it will work)

  • Right now feuds are company vs company. The PvP should be focused on the holdings that company holds.
  • Settlement vs settlement is planned and will likely involve prolonged wars between all settlements involved.
  • Alignments, once implemented will allow for a company to assist and allied company with minimum rep loss compared to the current rep loss.

Your idea is valid but probably not worth the resource time if at a later date it will be automatically implemented with the much larger plan.

Fair enough. Still, some stop gap measure that is similar to this could be something to consider.

Quijenoth Starkiller
Now what I think your idea would definitely work for is if your settlement wanted to offer its services to ANY company. it would certainly be advantageous to non-combatant companies and likewise quite profitable for the mercs smile

This is true.

There is also of good use for allied companies from some other settlement as well. Naturally I think a hard limit of how many additional companies that can piggy back on the feud is in order (like maybe one or two tops). With company influence being a lot more important from EE10 onward (especially in the case of maintaining and capturing holdings), this would help if say, the attacker wants to have a chance at taking out a larger force by calling in aid directly from another company. That's just one more example to toss out there in addition to the ones already provided.
Baron Malthius
Something else that occurred to me…

Perhaps this proposed mechanic can remain strictly with feuds on the company level only. Should settlement warfare be used instead this option would not be available.

I think personally that it keeps with the spirit of the game which is having to weigh your options. If you want to bring in an outside company, then you wouldn't be able to bring the rest of your settlement to bear. Keeping the two options mutually exclusive would be a good balance because then a settlement won't be able to take advantage of both to create an unstoppable horde.

I'm not sure what it would take to implement all of this, but if it is possible to do it I think this is the best way to go.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Eh, if blobs work blobs will be used. They would need to mechanically make them unusable or really restrict the feuds to the specific involved companies but that would also require them to shore up company hopping to avoid it becoming a straight out exploit. Fighting over objectives will probably always be the purview of blobs and logistics more than individual skill but random banditry or harassment will be focused on small group PvP and personnel skill. Two different side of the PvP coin. Possibly formations might make blobs interesting and more skill based at some point, but dunno.

Right now though company vs company for towers and eventually holdings definitely does not seem to work very well given both the social groupings and the in-game mechanical groupings.
Nihimon
It's interesting to contemplate how low-scale PvP (banditry, mercenaries, etc.) can be made viable without consistently escalating into Settlement-level conflict. That is, I'm hopeful that players would be able to play as Bandits and Mercenaries and not automatically call down the wrath of their victims' Settlements on their own Settlements. I'm not sure how to make that happen mechanically - maybe it just has to be that we decide as a community to "look the other way".

For what it's worth, I think that strong systems that discourage Company Hopping are required in order to make it easier to look the other way without feeling like you're being taken advantage of. I'd prefer to see Mercenary Companies operating as separate, persistent entities that pay their own Influence to participate (or take the Rep hits). I know some folks are trying to make that kind of thing work, and I hope others follow their lead.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Duffy Swiftshadow
Hopefully fleshed out banditry systems will ease the feeling of loss to some degree, but I think it will still depend on some aspects of the community having to decide to look the other way. Tho I suppose you could argue that dedicated bandits should never really belong to a settlement (or if they do a far off remote one for security reasons) and instead operate out of semi hidden holdings. Allowing them to pack up and move around if desired, the idea of a bandit town right smack dab in the middle of the most populated areas is kinda silly conceptually speaking.

I would love merc companies to operate separately and in some situations it works fine, but in others the mechanics strongly encourage you to be in the same company. Currently the two ideas seem very much mechanically at odds, it's all a messy side effect of the currently limited conflict systems and company/settlement structure/mechanics. Needs some fleshing out for this stuff to work smoothly and cover the desired styles of play.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post