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
@ Decius

Definitely one of your top 10 longest posts EVAR! Still, a good one. Bravo! smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Wolf of Rathglen
Bringslite
If there could be such a state of development that companies could hold and operate hexes independently while settlements still benefit by having some of those companies affiliated to the settlement, then I wouldn't be objecting to your proposals. That seems to me a more interesting way to approach the problem with Land, Companies, and Settlement interactions and dependencies among all 3.

Companies and settlements are not different people. It's the same people. Of course settlements benefit from the companies affiliated with it they do not exist until companies affiliate at a centralized settlement.

I've said it over and over, diverging levels of GAMEPLAY. Where your character stands, the buttons you push… gameplay. A single person does company stuff and settlement stuff, just in different places, different times, pushing different buttons. In the current low population there's no functional difference between company and settlement and the things you say make a lot of sense. "Full-feature" goals have to assume enough subscribers to be profitable, way more than now.

The average person in 10,000 OE subscribers is not a settlement leader. 90% of everything they have to do in the game is with their guild so they need the conceptual space where their guild is paramount. A group of guilds come together for their mutual benefit where a very few players live in that different space every day but the vast majority visit briefly here and there. Contributing to the building and improvement of training and production facilities is not something most players want to spend all evening every evening doing but very necessary, so it's a separate layer on top of the core company level gameplay.

Settlements don't need direct ownership of hexes around them, they are made of the companies who make the settlement the settlement concerns are for the member companies.

Duffy Swiftshadow
What is bulk resources for in this example? If it's anything the settlement uses then we're right back to where we are today before we get to any other details.

They build the buildings because books of old recipes don't hold up in the rain, obviously. But settlements live and die by their Keep, not bulk resources. Settlements exist to serve the companies that form it, there is no settlement without its member companies, so companies use their bulk to develop the buildings in the settlement they want to use or do something else with it and train/produce on less capable facilities. The settlement and company are not the same thing like right now.

One company raiding another's vault probably isn't even for the minority content of bulk resources, they're super hard to get back safe. It affects the chartering settlement not at all; divergent gameplay levels means one settlement can't use a single blobby company feud as a proxy to damage or take over another settlement like right now in WoT, but it still retains support and dependencies like training and production from above and defense of the municipal resources a single company can't attain on its own from the roots.

Companies might want help with their feuds, so there's an alliance feature. Coordinated feuds from one settlement on yours? Time to meet and talk about a war on their settlement to damage all their companies at once. When company and settlement aren't the same thing it could be another member of your own settlement feuding and raiding you. It is a sandbox…

Joining in a feud alliance is also feuding so costs Influence. Potential allies need to have it available and be willing to spend it to become allied. Not the same situation as company hopping for foreverwar and scaling up costs per joining company puts a hard cap on the size of blobs which won't be able to sustain the alliance for long.

Influence cap. Only a certain number of locals can benefit your Influence generation each server day, more than that don't add Influence but do add vulnerability in the form of an arithmetically increasing pvp window for each one. Gobbling all the property is disincentivized and functionally impossible not long after.
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
Duffy Swiftshadow
I guess my problem is I don't see how your example is separating settlements (large group interest) from companies (smaller sub group interests). They still overlap which is the cause of all the problems we see today, thus nothing actually changes. You changed some details but the result is the same, you light the beacons anytime something happens and everyone comes running, the only change is how the mechanics are arranged. No problems are actually solved. And if a settlement doesn't respond to it's companies calls, then the company leaves for one that does. So exactly how is that any different than what we see today besides being tied up in some cleaner mechanical button pushing (which worse case is still something over today's company hopping shenanigans)?

Your influence cap is easily mitigated by just creating more companies with your overflow. Easy as hell for the blob to deal with, far trickier for slowly growing groups. Also the idea that you need to eventually turn folks away creates some weird social problems.

If feuding is designed to eventually be too expensive so you war instead, then guess what the new defacto response is?

Again, while it's a lot cleaner than what we have today it still has all the same problems we have today, which is no reason to separate actions against a sub group from a response by the larger group.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post