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

Paddy Fitzpatrick
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.

Not sure if I follow…

If you are asking whether there are companies that would not be able to play the game in any meaningful way without a player settlement to belong to then yes am I sure. If Fianna had not been fortunate enough to been taken in by Aragon and no one else decided to take us in and give us a chance, Fianna never would have gotten off the ground at all. After about a month or two we would have hit a wall and been no longer able to progress or accomplish anything useful due to lack of basic T2 training.

There may have been other companies who weren't so fortunate that may have come and gone without much notice after a month or two for this very same thing. They may not have been so lucky or they would have been unable to find workarounds like my guys did for the many things not implemented yet.

Considering how much effort it took (especially in our early days) to convince folks that a couple of mostly incompetent bandits was not worth starting WWIII over, I can see where other new companies may have run into problems if they couldn't get enough approval from existing settlements.

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.

There would be no need to worry about that, the Faction system would provide the necessary support for non-Settlement companies, assuming I get what you're saying that is.
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
So if the original reason to tie everyone to something that players could knock over(sandbox style) was to have a check against excessive undesired behavior, what kind of "system" can be dreamed up that still provides possible limits to that undesired behavior? Granted we have seen very little of it but that is because we have very few groups playing the game.

If it becomes possible to achieve everything that a citizen of a powerful settlement can achieve, without the ties, where is the check and balance?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite
So if the original reason to tie everyone to something that players could knock over(sandbox style) was to have a check against excessive undesired behavior, what kind of "system" can be dreamed up that still provides possible limits to that undesired behavior? Granted we have seen very little of it but that is because we have very few groups playing the game.

If it becomes possible to achieve everything that a citizen of a powerful settlement can achieve, without the ties, where is the check and balance?

I covered it a bit in my original post by separating faction company territory mechanically from settlement territory and limiting just how much they can interact. The key to limit it from getting out of hand for both types was in the cyclical nature of their currency for initiating attacks: limited caps thus limits on territory growth, delays for follow up attacks after a failed attack, and severe delays and reduction in cap if you lose territory. This does the most to prevent what I would classify as mechanically valid 'griefing' and make a particular battle's outcome more important, but less debilitating.

Reputation would still be the primary personal resource to prevent out of PvP system attacks from becoming too common a problem, but that's a side conversation about how rep needs better teeth. I still vote that current support level for a person should be tied to reputation to really make it sting and scale with your character, but we need all these systems in place first.
Bringslite
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite
So if the original reason to tie everyone to something that players could knock over(sandbox style) was to have a check against excessive undesired behavior, what kind of "system" can be dreamed up that still provides possible limits to that undesired behavior? Granted we have seen very little of it but that is because we have very few groups playing the game.

If it becomes possible to achieve everything that a citizen of a powerful settlement can achieve, without the ties, where is the check and balance?

I covered it a bit in my original post by separating faction company territory mechanically from settlement territory and limiting just how much they can interact. The key to limit it from getting out of hand for both types was in the cyclical nature of their currency for initiating attacks: limited caps thus limits on territory growth, delays for follow up attacks after a failed attack, and severe delays and reduction in cap if you lose territory. This does the most to prevent what I would classify as mechanically valid 'griefing' and make a particular battle's outcome more important, but less debilitating.

Reputation would still be the primary personal resource to prevent out of PvP system attacks from becoming too common a problem, but that's a side conversation about how rep needs better teeth. I still vote that current support level for a person should be tied to reputation to really make it sting and scale with your character, but we need all these systems in place first.
Is there any way for a coded system to be flexible enough to recognize multiple types of "goals" for actions and determine success or failure? Would we be stuck with very limited scope in terms of what we might consider a successful aggression?

Edit: For example if I initiate an attack at the holding of Settlement "A" that is really just a feint to draw you up there, could the code recognize that as a success or would it punish me for failing to take that holding?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Bringslite
So if the original reason to tie everyone to something that players could knock over(sandbox style) was to have a check against excessive undesired behavior, what kind of "system" can be dreamed up that still provides possible limits to that undesired behavior? Granted we have seen very little of it but that is because we have very few groups playing the game.

If it becomes possible to achieve everything that a citizen of a powerful settlement can achieve, without the ties, where is the check and balance?

That would depend how the Factions are designed, how different opposing factions interact with one another and how they interact with Settlements. It is a totally separate system.

The first thing to remember is there will be different advantages and disadvantages to being either part of a Faction of Settlement at the company level. So if no one in a player settlement wants you there is still the disadvantages of not being in a Settlement vs. Factions. The social control thing isn't lost entirely.

The limits on opposing Faction interactions will be primarily mechanical, and different ones will interact in different ways. I heard a few times that opposing factions will be auto PvP flagged to one another and while I like the idea personally as a PvPer it doesn't feel like that makes sense for all opposing factions. It may make sense for some, but not like for merchants and bandits. Bandits are about the loot first rather than the kill so auto PvP dont make sense, same with merchants, they care about the goods but there are ways to encourage PvPers there too. For example give them the ability to become bounty hunters/protectors for the merchant faction or something. Bandits can be auto flagged to Bounty Hunters and Bounty Hunters can be autoflagged to Bandits but non-bounty hunter/protector merchants and bandits arent. Bandits of course should get that whole Stand and Deliver mechanic I was told was supposed to be here AND get bandit hideouts for being bandits. Merchants can get merchant guild halls for better production and bonuses to gathering and better gusher equipment or something when they implement that.

Balancing all this would be a pain but it can be done. This isn't the only way to do it but it was the one that seemed to make the most sense as far as I could tell. Further talks on how Factions could work though should be its own thread.
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
Decius
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.
Which settlement was targeted and pressured for chartering bandit companies? Who has tried and failed to get a company charted by a settlement?
Decius
Is there any good reason that wars and feuds shouldn't drain coin? Say, one silver times the square of the number of people in the aggressions company, per day?

Simply adding that one chance to existing mechanics would make huge expansionist groups unviable, since their cost the expand would increase with the fourth power of their maximum controlled area.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite
Is there any way for a coded system to be flexible enough to recognize multiple types of "goals" for actions and determine success or failure? Would we be stuck with very limited scope in terms of what we might consider a successful aggression?

Edit: For example if I initiate an attack at the holding of Settlement "A" that is really just a feint to draw you up there, could the code recognize that as a success or would it punish me for failing to take that holding?

In my example we replace feuds with wars which is a similar mechanic to what we have today but is specifically for capturing territory; regardless of being a settlement or faction company the only difference is how your currency cap is determined and what you get when you take the hex. A successful attack would be one that acquires a piece of territory as that is the goal of the war mechanic. You don't have to pick which piece of territory your attacking ahead of time as part of declaring the war, but you need to end up with something under your control from the opposition by the end to make it a successful attack, and it then gets applied against your cap. If you have enough cap to capture multiple hexes, which is possible, but should not be overly common in my setup, you can capture more than one hex at a time. However, failing to capture territory by the end of the war period does place a portion of your cap in some sort of 'timeout'. This timeout is to limit how many times you can attack in a row and make a battle's results more meaningful, but also not a gateway to hopelessness.

The war mechanic can be expanded to allow alliance and kingdom help, but ultimately some settlement needs to make room for the target hex in it's cap and is responsible for the attack's outcome. This helps remove some of the issues we see today with company hopping to facilitate similar goals and feud spamming without any intent to actually engage the enemy, but still allows the war to choose from any valid target it wishes.
Bringslite
Decius
Is there any good reason that wars and feuds shouldn't drain coin? Say, one silver times the square of the number of people in the aggressions company, per day?

Simply adding that one chance to existing mechanics would make huge expansionist groups unviable, since their cost the expand would increase with the fourth power of their maximum controlled area.
I am definitely for things that drain coin AND limit War blobs(at least a little).
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite
Is there any way for a coded system to be flexible enough to recognize multiple types of "goals" for actions and determine success or failure? Would we be stuck with very limited scope in terms of what we might consider a successful aggression?

Edit: For example if I initiate an attack at the holding of Settlement "A" that is really just a feint to draw you up there, could the code recognize that as a success or would it punish me for failing to take that holding?

In my example we replace feuds with wars which is a similar mechanic to what we have today but is specifically for capturing territory; regardless of being a settlement or faction company the only difference is how your currency cap is determined and what you get when you take the hex. A successful attack would be one that acquires a piece of territory as that is the goal of the war mechanic. You don't have to pick which piece of territory your attacking ahead of time as part of declaring the war, but you need to end up with something under your control from the opposition by the end to make it a successful attack, and it then gets applied against your cap. If you have enough cap to capture multiple hexes, which is possible, but should not be overly common in my setup, you can capture more than one hex at a time. However, failing to capture territory by the end of the war period does place a portion of your cap in some sort of 'timeout'. This timeout is to limit how many times you can attack in a row and make a battle's results more meaningful, but also not a gateway to hopelessness.

The war mechanic can be expanded to allow alliance and kingdom help, but ultimately some settlement needs to make room for the target hex in it's cap and is responsible for the attack's outcome. This helps remove some of the issues we see today with company hopping to facilitate similar goals and feud spamming without any intent to actually engage the enemy, but still allows the war to choose from any valid target it wishes.
Yeah. Thanks for clarifying that. I think that even though I want feuds separated from war actions, I am still thinking in terms of how feuds work right now. Pretty silly! smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post