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
I think that most participating(even most readers) here agree that Holdings and Feuding is an incorrect mix or combo. That companies need much more ability to be diverse and many more purposes to serve. Our problem is that we don't have the same ideas about how to fix it.
For my part, I want to see it fixed in the least complex way that requires the least amount of unplanned mechanics and unplanned work. My ideas are as simple as I can make them, I think, and still achieve that.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Wolf of Rathglen
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.

Bringslite
*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

You just said the land and holdings should belong to the settlement, called companies the caretakers on behalf of the settlement, said locals should remain so important to settlements they are war targets for intersettlement conflict, and suggested companies spend their Influence to improve settlement buildings. You've got everything coming back to the settlement buddy. In that world settlements replace the day-to-day gaming and social ties so we don't need any code for companies or Influence or feuds we can just join a settlement and go do the settlement goals.

[Edit: I have no moral objection to settlements being what players spend all our time on in game or as the hub of social ties. But if that's going to be the case I don't want one second of development time wasted on companies, feuds, or Influence since they aren't performing those roles anymore. This is Crowdforging- the concepts we want and mechanics to get us there.]
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
Wolf of Rathglen
Bringslite
I think that most participating(even most readers) here agree that Holdings and Feuding is an incorrect mix or combo. That companies need much more ability to be diverse and many more purposes to serve. Our problem is that we don't have the same ideas about how to fix it.
For my part, I want to see it fixed in the least complex way that requires the least amount of unplanned mechanics and unplanned work. My ideas are as simple as I can make them, I think, and still achieve that.

Most participating (even most readers) here agree that Towers and Feuding is an incorrect mix.

Towers (whatever artwork they use) are settlement, feuding is company, and that makes it not work.

If we ever get holdings they'll go perfectly with feuding among just companies without the settlement having stakes or involvement. Tork designed feuding for holdings.
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Ah, I see the confusion here,

See, the OP, and what it seems myself and others are agreeing with, is that settlement holdings should be a settlement level thing, not a company level thing. It is why I keep insisting on the strict separation between settlement type buildings such as holdings and company level buildings such as faction buildings and whatnot that are used for companies on the company level.

This whole thing was proposing a way to have both systems co exists as separate entities and separate paths by which players can play the game. That's why putting it all under one term such as "locals" isn't helpful because there are two completely different types of "local" buildings for two completely different systems.

Which brings me to…

Proxima Sin
[Edit: I have no moral objection to settlements being what players spend all our time on in game or as the hub of social ties. But if that's going to be the case I don't want one second of development time wasted on companies, feuds, or Influence since they aren't performing those roles anymore. This is Crowdforging- the concepts we want and mechanics to get us there.]

See, I do have an objection, and that is why I like what was proposed in this original proposal. It seems these blogs clearly state that there will be two different systems, Settlements and Factions, and so this is a potential way to get there. I have always said it would be a terrible thing if this were to change and Settlements were the only place players would spend all their time and be the only way companies or individuals could exist. Heck, the original concept behind Fianna really doesn't make a whole lot of sense as part of the Settlement system at all and we were lucky that we had our friends in our now alliance that helped us out, gave us a chance, and let us be ourselves. Everything we have accomplished has been through playing quite frankly a very unnatural play style for the kind of group we are building. It is nice to have a settlement now but to be proper bandits we shouldn't have to do this. The Faction system would have been a much more natural home had there been one implemented when I got here.

So with that, the only thing i would change here is expand those faction forts into other faction specific facilities, such as say a merchant's guild hall or a bandit hideout for example. Again, more ways for companies to interact and create social ties and progress in the world without having to be stuck in some settlement by a pre-existing group.
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
Bringslite
Proxima Sin
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.

Bringslite
*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

You just said the land and holdings should belong to the settlement, called companies the caretakers on behalf of the settlement, said locals should remain so important to settlements they are war targets for intersettlement conflict, and suggested companies spend their Influence to improve settlement buildings. You've got everything coming back to the settlement buddy. In that world settlements replace the day-to-day gaming and social ties so we don't need any code for companies or Influence or feuds we can just join a settlement and go do the settlement goals.

[Edit: I have no moral objection to settlements being what players spend all our time on in game or as the hub of social ties. But if that's going to be the case I don't want one second of development time wasted on companies, feuds, or Influence since they aren't performing those roles anymore. This is Crowdforging- the concepts we want and mechanics to get us there.]

Hmmm… I didn't make myself clear. Holdings should be the property(at least the land and buildings) of the settlements. Managing the Holdings should just be one of the things that companies can choose to do. Who else is going to do it? Like A King grants land's use to a Baron. In some feudal situations, that is how it worked. The Baron works the Land and gives something back to the King like taxes and probably a levy of warriors when called on.
That is just ONE of many things companies could choose to specialize in. There should be more. Another company might oversee no holdings and specialize as merchants, bandits, a military unit, mercs, PVE specialists, or a mix if they want.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
Settlements are just groupings of companies that happens to has a few different mechanics attached to it. Running a settlement has very little to do with interacting with the few mechanics associated with it right now. Mechanically about the only thing it requires is gathering up bulk at least once a week and setting the training level. Running a settlement is really about managing your companies and the players that make them up and in some of our cases managing multiple groups spread out across several settlements while managing everyone's needs and desires. The problems we're seeing aren't arising because of the settlement mechanics, their appearing because of the company mechanics.

As a settlement leader I don't benefit from any of this in any sort of personal or mechanical way besides general enjoyment, but it's still a pain in the ass that consumes most of my playtime right now and we don't even have hundreds of members playing yet!

The systems I outlined are aiming towards the goal of removing mechanical company and settlement needs from each other day to day. You should spend most of your time as an average player worrying about your company activity and reinforcing your company identity. You only have to worry about the settlement if your higher level politicking, part of the chore management team, or when the bell rings to rally the troops. Right now and even with some of the ideas you outlined the settlement mechanics are far too interested in what companies are doing, primarily with their influence, I want to separate the two and remove that interest, but keep the interesting aspects of territory and the conflict that goes with it.

Removing territory from the settlement needs is an option, what does that option add to the game that makes it more interesting? What is the role of territory for a company, what does it grant? What is the role of the settlement? How does the settlement siege play into the company focused ideas? Does the company focus remove any of the meta blobbing? Will it encourage meta groupings to create optimal companies to dominate the territory game? Will the meta grouping discourage company identity over time?
Decius
Does anyone know any specific group of people that wants to do the work that a company would have to do in order to have Support but isn't playing because their company would have to be chartered by a player settlement for support under the current rules? That objection seems spurious to me.

Options that allow a company to provide support for its members in addition to support provided from a settlement make sense, but I see no need to make sure that every small group can afford to provide their own broad Support independently.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Decius
Does anyone know any specific group of people that wants to do the work that a company would have to do in order to have Support but isn't playing because their company would have to be chartered by a player settlement for support under the current rules? That objection seems spurious to me.

Options that allow a company to provide support for its members in addition to support provided from a settlement make sense, but I see no need to make sure that every small group can afford to provide their own broad Support independently.

I can think of one that quit pretty early on because they couldn't build up some holdings and live in a corner somewhere, but I also don't think the crux of their issue was necessarily centered around support.

The idea behind support always seemed to be based around social control, it was a way to curb negative behavior patterns. That said it could be too strong a tool hence why I think they were talking about allowing Faction membership to grant support too. In such a case the trade off was the side effects of picking a faction, but I would say there still needs to be some consideration to insure that Factions don't just become the de-facto home of griefers and malcontents.
Bringslite
Decius
Does anyone know any specific group of people that wants to do the work that a company would have to do in order to have Support but isn't playing because their company would have to be chartered by a player settlement for support under the current rules? That objection seems spurious to me.

Options that allow a company to provide support for its members in addition to support provided from a settlement make sense, but I see no need to make sure that every small group can afford to provide their own broad Support independently.
What do you mean by "broad support"? We have seen that bandits can't really operate in a fun(for them) way because they need be tied to a targetable settlement. We have seen mercenary groups threatened by whichever side they do not work for in a given conflict.
How do company sized groups get a taste of building up "their spot" without the yoke of existing powers and the constraints imposed by those powers? A territory sandbox game's appeal is a not as fun if every Jane or Joe can't find a hill and try to become a King without a crap ton of baggage from established groups.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Wolf of Rathglen
@Paddy

Actually you're right, I didn't object in the moment of the edit but now that I think about in a sandbox a roving social group should be just as viable as a settled one just with different advantages and drawbacks, that is a problem for settlement focus. The company model serves much better there.

There is a fundamental truth going on here: Ryan Dancey copied the living shit out of EVE Online and having to do anything original to make this game feel like Pathfinder was a bother to him that he half-assed to get past it. I can apply that assertion to the Kickstarter claims, the lie of "PFO has no classes one character can be anything you want (but no settlement will support everything) and you're required to be a member of a settlement to function so pick a class", the economy, the "auction hall" that doesn't have auctions, the spell system, and others, including this topic mirrored with EVE bottom to top.

EVE / PFO

corporations - companies (guilds, day to day activities and social ties)
alliances - settlements (connection to the larger game world and close allies)
power blocs in EVE are alliances of alliances - kingdoms (macro scale politics and occasional cray cray battles)
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post