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.

You have what you hold: A Proposed Territorial Charter for an Incomplete Game

Maxen
Hello All,

Yes, this is a long post, but please take a moment to read (or there's a TL/DR at the bottom.) After the very recent contention around ‘entitlement’, ‘ownership’, ‘manifestos’, and ‘territorial claims’, I’d like to offer this up for consideration. We know this is an incomplete game and it is my sincere hope that the deal with New Corp is finalized soon and rapid development resumes (and kudos to the current Goblinworks team for continuing to deliver content under the present conditions.)

So, you have what you hold. In the simplest game mechanic sense, a hex is claimed and held by placing holdings and outposts. That hex is defended by guards surrounding the outposts and by companies and settlement allies who have been feuded. Perhaps a future game mechanic defense would involve roving bands of soldiers ready to defend a hex from incursion, but for now, if you want to take a hex, you attack and defeat the outpost. You have what you hold.

A cluster of held hexes becomes a territory. A settlement must have the six surrounding hexes claimed to maintain their settlement. This becomes sovereign land. If you want to take a settlement from someone, you defeat the six core hexes. If players from other settlements want to mine those hexes for resources, they do so at their own risk. You have what you hold.

Hexes claimed around the core six settlement hexes extend that sovereignty. It doesn’t matter if they are contiguous (Hawaii and Alaska are prime examples in real life.) If someone wants to take that land, they defeat the holdings. You have what you hold.

Settlements may band together to form small nations, compacts or alliances and those arrangements should be recognized by all. Just because a company or player isn’t a member of a specific settlement doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t come to the defense of a compatriot in need. You have what your alliance holds.

Shield hexes are by definition no man’s land since no one can physically claim them. If the shield hexes fall within a cluster of claimed hexes, they are certainly under the protection or control of that settlement. But I think of shield hexes as the U.S. Interstate Highway system of PfO. The highway is funded largely by the federal government, but maintained by the states. Laws of the federal and state government apply, much like the laws of the sovereign land should apply to the shield hexes. But you still have what you hold.

Similarly, monster home and crater hexes cannot be claimed. If they fall within the borders of claimed hexes, they can certainly be called part of the sovereign lands of that settlement. But since the settlement cannot lay claim to the hex, it is theirs to defend, but they should not consider it entitled land. If another group is intruding on a settlement’s sovereignty, that settlement certainly has the right to defend it. They will either be victorious or defeated. You have what you hold.

Ultimately, what has occurred lately has smeared the fine line between playing role playing in a sandbox and player greed (and I don’t use that term in a pejorative way. We all want to get those T3 settlement and recipe goodies.) Settlements and companies that claim to be Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic should play those roles. If you’re Lawful Good, you respect the laws and sovereignty of other settlements, unless said settlements are diametrically opposed to your values and beliefs and you wish to defeat them. Similarly, a Lawful Evil settlement or company should respect sovereignty to a point, but would likely be more aggressive in their desires to take and control all settlements. Chaotic aligned settlements and companies likely believe that everything is fair game and are not bound by claims of sovereignty. But they should also be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions against others (and I know that Paddy and others who following this path have already made it clear that they are.)

TL/DR
Bottom line is that this is an incomplete game with incomplete mechanics. It is sad to see some players quit because they perceive they have been wronged. Maybe that was for the best, but ultimately, it is their decision. But for the core players of this game, let’s try to make the most of what we have until the game mechanics can stand on their own. Yes, it’s a sandbox, but no one likes getting sand thrown in their eyes. Oh, and you have what you hold. smile
Bringslite
This seems to be exactly what is going on with every settlement or alliance that has claimed any territory. I may be wrong but I don't think that anyone expects "everyone" to respect boundaries laid down through public claim, proximity, placed holdings, or any other unknown reasonable distance(no words) claims.

As far as I can tell, we all expect to have to back up what we claim if we want it recognized.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Drogon
+1
HpoD - "I have, however, sat and watched as others took things more personally (on both sides) and became zealots, charging forward on a shining white horse into a pile of shit. Forum Warriors at their peak, striding the battlefield knee deep in the bloody, broken arguments of their adversaries before the burning village of their credibility….Chill guys. "
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Maxen
Hello All,

Yes, this is a long post, but please take a moment to read (or there's a TL/DR at the bottom.) After the very recent contention around ‘entitlement’, ‘ownership’, ‘manifestos’, and ‘territorial claims’, I’d like to offer this up for consideration. We know this is an incomplete game and it is my sincere hope that the deal with New Corp is finalized soon and rapid development resumes (and kudos to the current Goblinworks team for continuing to deliver content under the present conditions.)

So, you have what you hold. In the simplest game mechanic sense, a hex is claimed and held by placing holdings and outposts. That hex is defended by guards surrounding the outposts and by companies and settlement allies who have been feuded. Perhaps a future game mechanic defense would involve roving bands of soldiers ready to defend a hex from incursion, but for now, if you want to take a hex, you attack and defeat the outpost. You have what you hold.

A cluster of held hexes becomes a territory. A settlement must have the six surrounding hexes claimed to maintain their settlement. This becomes sovereign land. If you want to take a settlement from someone, you defeat the six core hexes. If players from other settlements want to mine those hexes for resources, they do so at their own risk. You have what you hold.

Hexes claimed around the core six settlement hexes extend that sovereignty. It doesn’t matter if they are contiguous (Hawaii and Alaska are prime examples in real life.) If someone wants to take that land, they defeat the holdings. You have what you hold.

Settlements may band together to form small nations, compacts or alliances and those arrangements should be recognized by all. Just because a company or player isn’t a member of a specific settlement doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t come to the defense of a compatriot in need. You have what your alliance holds.

Shield hexes are by definition no man’s land since no one can physically claim them. If the shield hexes fall within a cluster of claimed hexes, they are certainly under the protection or control of that settlement. But I think of shield hexes as the U.S. Interstate Highway system of PfO. The highway is funded largely by the federal government, but maintained by the states. Laws of the federal and state government apply, much like the laws of the sovereign land should apply to the shield hexes. But you still have what you hold.

Similarly, monster home and crater hexes cannot be claimed. If they fall within the borders of claimed hexes, they can certainly be called part of the sovereign lands of that settlement. But since the settlement cannot lay claim to the hex, it is theirs to defend, but they should not consider it entitled land. If another group is intruding on a settlement’s sovereignty, that settlement certainly has the right to defend it. They will either be victorious or defeated. You have what you hold.

+1

From a meta standpoint, i am totally on board with this.

There needs to be a quantifiable way to tell what actually is territory and what isnt and this is the way to do it, at leaat for now. The thing is in some cases it has gone beyond what is stated here and has sort of turned into territory by fiat. If someone wishes to claim a hex that is not a shield hex or starter town but does not have a holding they can try but until they have begun patrolling, fighting, doing some diplomacy, or otherwise have had to do something to earn it I would consider it disputed by default. Tou want to control it you gotta put in the work first. You have what you hold.

I mention diplomacy cause there are ways for neighboring factions to come together to work out some kind of deal with disputed monster hexes if both parties wish.

So nicely done, as said, i am definitely behind this.

Ultimately, what has occurred lately has smeared the fine line between playing role playing in a sandbox and player greed (and I don’t use that term in a pejorative way. We all want to get those T3 settlement and recipe goodies.) Settlements and companies that claim to be Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic should play those roles. If you’re Lawful Good, you respect the laws and sovereignty of other settlements, unless said settlements are diametrically opposed to your values and beliefs and you wish to defeat them. Similarly, a Lawful Evil settlement or company should respect sovereignty to a point, but would likely be more aggressive in their desires to take and control all settlements. Chaotic aligned settlements and companies likely believe that everything is fair game and are not bound by claims of sovereignty. But they should also be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions against others (and I know that Paddy and others who following this path have already made it clear that they are.)

Well there are many ways to play a given role of course. Dun Baile doesnt care about territory at all (unless paid to do so) cause we ARE bandits.

Now of course when it comes to inter alliance politics i also in accorsance with what we are dont believe in ideological purity. We are more likely to defer to our allies take on territory (which if i understood it right is much closer to the OPs proposal) in the interest of getting stuff done and not being a stubborn stick in the mud without good cause. The politik is real after all.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Duffy Swiftshadow
If I'm reading it correctly our official stance is 'No'.
Bringslite
It is well laid out Maxen. I am just puzzled because what you describe was what I have always felt is already going on. There isn't anyway to keep anyone out of ANY hex anywhere, already.

I would be a bit surprised if anyone that publically declared territory believed any different or that everyone would stay out because of a forum post or word of mouth. Declaring that robbery is illegal and will be punished doesn't stop robbery from happening. All it does is keep SOME people from robbing and let others know that there will be consequences if caught. It is the same for any "claims" on hexes.

@ Duffy

Am I failing my reading comprehension check? I will reread it.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
"Similarly, monster home and crater hexes cannot be claimed. If they fall within the borders of claimed hexes, they can certainly be called part of the sovereign lands of that settlement. But since the settlement cannot lay claim to the hex, it is theirs to defend, but they should not consider it entitled land. If another group is intruding on a settlement’s sovereignty, that settlement certainly has the right to defend it. They will either be victorious or defeated. You have what you hold."

Who feels entitled? Who believes that GW will keep other players out of anything that they claim, with a game mechanic?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
@Bringslite

If I'm understanding the proposal correctly he's asking us to agree that claims be entirely based around having a holding in a hex and that unclaimable hexes are permanent no man's lands treated as every man (or group) for themselves with minimal political repercussions.

We disagree based on primarily three points:
1. Faulty assumption about Core Six ownership (it's not even desirable in most locations).
2. Holding/Hex/Influence Efficiency encourages not spreading out holdings unnecessarily.
3. The bit about Lion hexes strips protections from folks more than current policies reinforces control.

@In General on Claims

I don't think it gets clarified enough but as for us we don't actually think we have some sort of writ from the gods that grants us sovereignty over our 'claimed' territory or that we'll wail and gnash teeth about mechanics not letting us control things. (Disclaimer: While I've talked about that sort of mechanic in other threads it's not from a control standpoint but a general fairness for others.) Nor do we think anyone else does for that matter.

These claims are just a bunch of guidelines for our RP based behavior and so other folks know what to expect from us. Writing down our own 'rules' and making them known is the key part of our Lawful bent. As part of that we will respect other Lawful like declarations that seem fairly reasonable when compared to our own. While they may not have a beneficial relationship with some of the advantages of setting up like us, we do likewise respect groups that RP the opposite so long as they don't persecute us for not being like them. Despite their banditry antics and being paid to harass us we don't have any problems with Fianna or their policies as they do not seek to persecute us for ours, we don't even have a grudge or standing issue with them. Diversity is interesting and makes the game fun to us, trying to force everyone to play the same or publicly shame them when they do something they don't like is not fun for us. Conflict is fine, we're all for some of it and we're all for it being based on competing over things, but we want to have some RP fun to it.

If you violate our 'terms' then we will react in the ways we've outlined in said terms. The idea is that you should always know what to expect from us when certain things are done instead of coming across us randomly and not knowing what's going to happen from day to day. They are guidelines and rules to creating or resolving possible conflict with us; that's the goal we're working towards.
Bringslite
Duffy Swiftshadow
@Bringslite

If I'm understanding the proposal correctly he's asking us to agree that claims be entirely based around having a holding in a hex and that unclaimable hexes are permanent no man's lands treated as every man (or group) for themselves with minimal political repercussions.

I see. My understanding (which I have always had) is more along the lines of claim what you want, but don't expect anything like: everyone will stay out, just because. The flip side of that is that most everyone knows what to expect FROM us if we spot them doing things where we have clearly let them know we do not want to see them doing those things.

We still have to back that up at every opportunity. I may be being dense but all three of us, everyone in fact, seems to be saying the same thing.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Drogon
Duffy Swiftshadow
@Bringslite

If I'm understanding the proposal correctly he's asking us to agree that claims be entirely based around having a holding in a hex and that unclaimable hexes are permanent no man's lands treated as every man (or group) for themselves with minimal political repercussions.

We disagree based on primarily three points:
1. Faulty assumption about Core Six ownership (it's not even desirable in most locations).
2. Holding/Hex/Influence Efficiency encourages not spreading out holdings unnecessarily.
3. The bit about Lion hexes strips protections from folks more than current policies reinforces control.

@In General on Claims

I don't think it gets clarified enough but as for us we don't actually think we have some sort of writ from the gods that grants us sovereignty over our 'claimed' territory or that we'll wail and gnash teeth about mechanics not letting us control things. (Disclaimer: While I've talked about that sort of mechanic in other threads it's not from a control standpoint but a general fairness for others.) Nor do we think anyone else does for that matter.

These claims are just a bunch of guidelines for our RP based behavior and so other folks know what to expect from us. Writing down our own 'rules' and making them known is the key part of our Lawful bent. As part of that we will respect other Lawful like declarations that seem fairly reasonable when compared to our own. While they may not have a beneficial relationship with some of the advantages of setting up like us, we do likewise respect groups that RP the opposite so long as they don't persecute us for not being like them. Despite their banditry antics and being paid to harass us we don't have any problems with Fianna or their policies as they do not seek to persecute us for ours, we don't even have a grudge or standing issue with them. Diversity is interesting and makes the game fun to us, trying to force everyone to play the same or publicly shame them when they do something they don't like is not fun for us. Conflict is fine, we're all for some of it and we're all for it being based on competing over things, but we want to have some RP fun to it.

If you violate our 'terms' then we will react in the ways we've outlined in said terms. The idea is that you should always know what to expect from us when certain things are done instead of coming across us randomly and not knowing what's going to happen from day to day. They are guidelines and rules to creating or resolving possible conflict with us; that's the goal we're working towards.

Makes Sense
HpoD - "I have, however, sat and watched as others took things more personally (on both sides) and became zealots, charging forward on a shining white horse into a pile of shit. Forum Warriors at their peak, striding the battlefield knee deep in the bloody, broken arguments of their adversaries before the burning village of their credibility….Chill guys. "
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post