Bob

Azure_Zero
Bob their is a BIG benefit that does happen near immediately and is short enough to be super effective and that is Hex protection (within 24 hours of change) like with feuds for raids.
This sudden switch could be used to stop a raid or attack on a target holding deep within a territory, hence the reason I said the switch should ONLY be put in effect at Settlement Upkeep for the week.

Ah, yes, that does kick in very quickly right now. We could probably do something similar to what we did with DI, like say that companies don't get to participate in protection within their settlement until they've been members for at least 2-3 days. We'd probably also want to say that settlements can't protect each other until they've been allies for at least 2-3 days as well. I'll add a feature request to think about that.

Bob

Azure_Zero
Now if Companies can hop around, that would be a issue, as I think the companies should be locked to the settlement until next settlement upkeep, so if they need to pay DI or switch hexes to a protective and protecting state but forget to do the switch over, they have to wait and hope no one notices.

Ideally, we like to give companies the flexibility to join and leave companies whenever they wish, but have there be natural consequences for doing so that keep companies from doing so very often. For example, when a company joins a settlement, we currently don't include their holdings in the DI calculations for that settlement the next day. We could do other things along the same lines to disincentivize settlement hopping by companies, or company hopping by characters, without locking them in if the pros of switching outweigh the cons.

Bob

Kenton Stone
No settlement that is [Dead/Inactive]{not paying upkeep} should participate in active alliances protecting hexes. All their hexes should be vulnerable to raiding and not protecting neighboring hexes.

That's an interesting thought. Feels like there are different degrees this could be taken to:

• Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected and don't provide protection, period.
• Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected by other companies and don't provide protection to them, but can do so within their own company.
• Hexes that aren't part of an active settlement aren't protected by allied companies from other settlements and don't provide protection to them, but can do so within their own settlement.

I think the first option might be a little too harsh, but on the other hand it might be so hard to protect any hexes under the second or third option that we're better off just using the simpler first option.

Of course, said companies could just switch to an active settlement to get back into the protected group, but they'd have to make themselves vulnerable at some point if the inactive settlement needed DI, though currently they could probably time that to fall on their non-PvP days.

Worth thinking about and probably not too hard to implement something along these lines. I'll file a feature request to consider it when we're on the PvP update.

Kenton Stone
Two cents from an "unemployed" bandit.
No settlement that is [Dead/Inactive]{not paying upkeep} should participate in active alliances protecting hexes. All their hexes should be vulnerable to raiding and not protecting neighboring hexes.

Garric Orcsbane
Since the best Alchemists are bartenders the trainer should be in the Tavern.

Bob

NightmareSr
I didn't think about the other future roles at all. That makes more sense then, but does leave a hard decision for where to but the crazy alchemist. So sorcerers and bards for university, but are there already plans for the other roles/classes to go to current large buildings, whenever they get added to the game?

Nothing's locked down, and some roles may shift around a bit due to second edition, but here's some of the thoughts from when the structures were initially designed:

• Barracks: Fighter, Aristocrat, Ranger
• Cathedral: Cleric, Paladin
• Guild House: Expert, Freeholder, Rogue
• Training Field: Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger
• University: Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer

Bob

NightmareSr
I like standards and matching things so only crafting/refining in the smalls, 2 crafts in mediums with then the combats all being multiples in the larges and single combat trainer in the mediums would mean the new combat Alchemist should be added to a large building and have a single trainer medium.

Standards do make things easier to understand. In general it's true that each role gets one dedicated medium, but there's also at least one medium covering their favored weapons, and the alchemists's tools feel different enough from other weapons that it feels like it deserves a new medium as well.

Bob

NightmareSr
Is the new combat alchemist getting just one trainer like the rogue, 2 trainers like current clerics, or 3 trainers like the wizard and fighter?

I'm thinking just one trainer for the non-attack alchemist feats and 1 trainer for the attack (alchemist's tools) feats.

Bob

NightmareSr
If the new Alchemist has any required proficiency that has to be trained from existing trainers then the new trainer should really be added to a large building that has that trainer. Otherwise maybe it needs a new large building that is like the guild but has the combat alchemist instead of rogue with expert, freeholder and then have the crafting alchemist or whatever else fits/needed instead of the skirmisher.

Alchemists have their own proficiencies that should be on their own trainer.

Bob

Azure_Zero
I think this part should be an exemption from the rule, and be account based, not character based.
As a inactive character does not have any of the main benefits of being active, and doing account based stops some possible headaches.

The only real headache involved is that the character has to be activated for a month to file the leadership challenge, and this fortunately isn't a very common occurrence. I think I've only been asked to help out with similar situations a few times over the last few years. I'm also generally willing to be fairly helpful in terms of just helping players get in touch with other players in these cases, particularly when it feels like the game didn't do enough to discourage characters from getting into these situations.

Speaking of which, I was testing this all out a bit just to see what we do to prevent this kind of situation. The last leader is in fact blocked from leaving the company, though not if they're the last member of the company. Of course, they're not blocked from leaving at all if there are technically other leaders, but they're not actively playing, which can effectively leave the company leaderless. I think adding some confirmation dialogs and/or adding some hoops to the process (like requiring leaders to demote themselves first before leaving the company) would help a lot here. I've filed a bug report to look into possible improvements.