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.

Potential Settlement/Company Revamp Idea

Bringslite
Keep the "feudal style" relationship between companies and settlements that GW was originally shooting for. Let it trickle down to expand between powerful companies and less powerful by allowing multiple companies to manage holdings and their outposts.
*The land and the holding constructs belong to the Settlements and are more like "Fortresses" or "Keeps".
*How defensible and productive they are is a function of how much influence the caretakers(companies) invest in them, but they are ultimately of benefit to Settlements and so are targets for WAR actions and not feuds.
*Remove influence caps from companies as well as "banking influence". Instead influence is spent and must be replenished by activity.
*No way around this: Create MORE ways or things for Companies to spend influence on such as reduced crafting times, slight improvements to Settlement Buildings, new external structures that are Company Beneficial and specialized to what a company wants to do/be: like bandit lairs-trade route way points-independent holdings-etc… get imaginative!

WAR:
War trumps all things. Actually "excuses for war" trump all things. Wars can be declared because a company from Red Hills is harassing a company from Bluesville, if Settlements want. Mostly though it should be too expensive politically and resource wise to bother with War because of feuds. Checks on expansion and Everwars are easy because almost everything to do with war and Settlements costs Bulk Resources.
*Internal Settlement buildings cost Bulk Resources to build and maintain.
*Holdings and Outposts cost Bulk Resources to build and to maintain.
*Taking things like Holdings and outposts, not to mention Settlements themselves, are a WAR FUNCTION and require Siege Engines that cost Bulk Resources to build. Here is one of your Blob Limiters: Destroy an aggressor's Siege Engines. They are costly. They are SLOW to move around. Lose a few and you need to replace them. Lose more than a few and you need to get you some Bulk to build more.

Suddenly Bulk is valuable. Better minds than mine can balance all that.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Wolf of Rathglen
Bringslite
*Remove … "banking influence". Instead influence is spent and must be replenished…

I am feeling that so much.

But Influence cap is a key check against "blob" fears and preserves a space for small companies to grow more powerful with the right decisions. And anything resembling the current activity-based replenishment system is horribly inadequate since pvp is by far the worst option to generate Influence in the allegedly territorial pvp based game. Pvp territorial success should be one tick better than any other means of generating Influence i.e. the strength and decision-making to protect the most land.

In original settlement blogs and posts:

Settlements are attacked directly, not by proxy through holdings. Holdings are meant to engage just companies and their few members with members of a feuding company. Settlements proper are the scale with stakes that all companies come together to preserve the things that affect them all like…

Settlements operate on Development Index (DI) with one main function of determining the training level from each municipal building and support level for settlement members supported by those buildings. They can also hard disallow training for any non-member which is a key feature in international politics. (Personal view: Differing levels of support for settlement members is a big mistake. A group of player-friends who can't be in a settlement together because some are fully supported while others aren't is an obvious sign to me of a game they won't be subscribing to.)

That is the Circle of Life for each player's company level and settlement level interaction with the game. Chartered companies perform different orchestrated roles in preserving and improving the municipal aspects of the settlement proper which in turn provides greater training and support to member companies. Settlements have no direct contact or interest in the local buildings scattered around the wilderness.
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
Duffy Swiftshadow
@Bringslite Agreed for the most part, though I might be biased as that fits right into what I was going for smile

The important details are uncapped growth and independent faction only companies (assuming that isn't removed as a prospective system), solving both of those is going to be important to keep these systems interesting and balanced.

Creating value for bulk is not impossibly hard, but it requires tighter controls over the bulk economy. When the potential bulk income for a settlement is not something that can reasonably be predicted due to ever growing numbers and expanding territory, it creates a huge potential pitfall and offers incentives for blobbing. The best we can do for actual fighting with PvP blobs is to reduce power projection, but that's only a minor part of the problem, we need to keep an eye on offsetting the every increasing resource potential of a blob.

They will also need to solve some of the chicken and egg problems to allow new groups to enter the territory game. If you need bulk to take anything over, but can't produce bulk you have to depend on the market. If the settlements were smart they would not sell the means to it's own destruction when they can control the only means of it's production. Thus limited bulk goods available publicly. One of the possibilities is to come up with an incentive or just the possibility for their to be empty settlement locations and make claiming those a matter of normal resource expenditure, right now there is no incentive to leave a potential settlement location empty.
Duffy Swiftshadow
@Sin

I want to remove influence caps so badly, I tried to for my example but I couldn't find a way that it didn't spiral out of control just like what we have today. Actually hard spending the influence helps, but doesn't solve the problem, it only makes it harder for a smaller groups to compete with slightly larger groups and lets blobs get out of control (as you said). Even if they wield about the same amount of PvP strength, the one with a few dozen extra influence generators via w/e non PvP activity give them a huge edge.

That's why I settled on separating influence from settlement territory caps and how that settlement cap was granted. Took some of that edge off the problem but still let influence be generated and used for smaller personal and company stuff like those buffs, company buildings, or other more personal PvP systems.

In original settlement blogs and posts:

Settlements are attacked directly, not by proxy through holdings. Holdings are meant to engage just companies and their few members with members of a feuding company. Settlements proper are the scale with stakes that all companies come together to preserve the things that affect them all.

That's nice to write down and all, but the second those holdings do absolutely anything or provide something for a settlement that's not whats gonna happen. Just because the design says something doesn't mean it's gonna survive contact with the player base or all the other mechanics. Their assumptions can be bad, the question is how to fix the problem: they can change the assumption or try to change the mechanics to fit the initial assumption.

I'll stick with my original post for the changing the assumption route, but for changing the mechanics to fit the assumption: To make settlement entities not care about holdings means they need to remove any connectivity and exclusive resources generated by the holdings for the settlement. So we get rid of bulk goods, DI no longer comes from holdings (again future planned thing anyways), and whatever the holdings/outposts/new smaller buildings do cannot give such huge bonuses to anything that they become required to operate a settlement. Holdings or their replacement now become much smaller tools to offset missing training and to help with specific other systems (banditry, crafting, gathering, trading, etc..).

Unfortunately they may still serve a settlement purpose: mechanical denial. If the presence of a holding prevents other holdings that could be detrimental to a settlement it is in that settlement's interest to have one of it's companies place a holding their instead and defend it. Therefore w/e these side system buildings do, we need to make sure it doesn't matter if an enemy has one right next to you or across the map, mechanically it needs to be irrelevant.
Wolf of Rathglen
Duffy Swiftshadow
They will also need to solve some of the chicken and egg problems to allow new groups to enter the territory game. If you need bulk to take anything over, but can't produce bulk you have to depend on the market. If the settlements were smart they would not sell the means to it's own destruction when they can control the only means of it's production. Thus limited bulk goods available publicly.

Before a new/small company sets up a first local building they'd usually want the blessing of neighbors or times could get tough very quickly, so there would probably be materials available for free or trade. Even without that, don't forget about raiding vaults (outposts are supposed to have independent vaults, the map a target rich environment).
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Proxima Sin
Duffy Swiftshadow
They will also need to solve some of the chicken and egg problems to allow new groups to enter the territory game. If you need bulk to take anything over, but can't produce bulk you have to depend on the market. If the settlements were smart they would not sell the means to it's own destruction when they can control the only means of it's production. Thus limited bulk goods available publicly.

Before a new/small company sets up a first local building they'd usually want the blessing of neighbors or times could get tough very quickly, so there would probably be materials available for free or trade. Even without that, don't forget about raiding vaults (outposts are supposed to have independent vaults, the map a target rich environment).

I did forget about raiding, that helps the pressure if you can successfully raid. I think it boils down that one way or another you'll need the approval of the nearest blobs which still strikes me as not that different from joining and splitting off later. Which leads right back into the very likely state that there is never an actual empty settlement location, so you'll need your own well backed blob to try and take an existing settlement.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Well on the slight tangent on PvP blob fears, here is the problem as I have always believed. The problem is righr now in group PvP is the lack of additional force multipliers. The only real force multiplier is gesr but since that is dependent on passive xp to some degree you cant close the gap by putting in extra time to crank stuff out. Even if you get sll the achievements grinded out faster, you still have many months to wait and there is nothing you can do about it.

Henceforth, this game is only capable of Zerg v Zerg battles right now and to such a degree where even a slight numbers advantage could be a death sentence for the other side. If youe blob is outnumbered by more than one or two people things can get lopsided pretty quickly.

Problem is, to continue to build on the analogy, there is no way to have a Protoss style army. There is no way to have a PvZ type matchup, where each style of army requires different types of tsctics and counters to win. You cant even have a debate over quality vs. quantity and at what point a smaller elite army should be able to overtake the mass army and vice versa cause it isnt even a thing right now.

Discussion on how to improve this merits its own thread but that is an angle that needs to be looked at in all these things. For example making holdings or fsction buildings with better guards and fortifications beyond just upgrading the +bonus on em. That coukd be an incentive for making an keeping them if they give you more benefits in PvP.
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
I think that's more of a matter of scale problem today, we have enough active crafters in most groups and not enough conflict that we can keep our main fighting forces in T3. But not enough crafters that we can just sell spare T3 either (outside of some weapons). That may not be true in the future when the population scales up and there is potential that Threading will curb some of the gear advantage. That leaves tactics and ability as the decider, but even then you have to really think about the side balance to some degree. A blob of 30-40 T1s with a handful of T2 and a few T3 will get shredded by 25 T3 players. That's the real 'Zerg vs Protoss' example. 20 T3 against 15 T3 is really not the same example, your gonna lose that fight.

I think one of the biggest ways to curb the blob advantage is to focus on changes to the re-spawning mechanics, step one is make sure we aren't spawning in the same location. Then by forcing the attacker to defend both a setup spawn point and attack a location while giving the defenders the existing guard and capture buffer you create a much more dynamic battlefield than we see today.
Wolf of Rathglen
Duffy Swiftshadow
In original settlement blogs and posts:

Settlements are attacked directly, not by proxy through holdings. Holdings are meant to engage just companies and their few members with members of a feuding company. Settlements proper are the scale with stakes that all companies come together to preserve the things that affect them all.

That's nice to write down and all, but the second those holdings do absolutely anything or provide something for a settlement that's not whats gonna happen.

I agree completely.

That's why I keep saying company gameplay and settlement gameplay for each character needs to diverge from each other* when development resumes.

The lumps in hexes we currently have are not holdings, they are towers for the War of Towers which we're still in. They got dressed up as holdings because we all got bored of WoT but they still function identically; with those minor cosmetic changes we associate with holdings. The lump now produces bulk resources to raise training level instead of automagically raising it, whatever. The concept of bulk was invented to be used by Stonecutters, Carpenters, Architects, and other Expert classes to build buildings, not this codex of useless recipes nonsense, so the game items labelled bulk resources aren't being REAL bulk resources just like holdings aren't real holdings.

* - Are we debating if companies should exist?

You and BL are both settlement leaders viewing everything through that lens of the bigger picture of multi-hex geographic regions and power blocs, when the game hits the 10,000 subscriber mark that will be the view of like .2% of players. Settlements will be too big for Average Joe to interact with most players joining and leaving their own settlement. So what is the average player supposed to literally do after logging in?

That is the role of companies, the day to day activities and social connections that keep players logging in. That's why company level gameplay needs its own space for the majority of players to spend the majority of their time.

Settlement level interaction for the same player is a nice layer on top of the first, and it needs to be in a different conceptual space so the player knows, "okay I'm doing settlement stuff now". I have been taking it for granted that everyone else is cognizant and on board with this too.

Because if holdings and outposts are settlement stuff, and escalations are settlement stuff, and wars are settlement stuff, and every player spends all of their time in game doing settlement stuff, then what is the point of programming for companies or feuds or Influence even existing? Every character just comes with a Settlement tag and that's it.
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
Bringslite
@ Proxima
Why do you think that two different settlement leaders are pushing to disassociate "Holding" ownership from Feuding and also to expand the universe that companies occupy and operate in? Because we are super stuck focused on settlement level thinking? Incorrect.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post