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.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

Preventing Company Churn

Yrme
In last night's PvP we (TEO) pulled a move that some of us aren't particularly comfortable with: we shifted multiple characters into a company in order to gain a situational advantage in a tower fight. (In the end I believe we had 10 people in one company vs. 15 enemies who were also in a single company; we won the tower by the skin of our teeth - and we wouldn't have won if we hadn't shifted people.)

As we move into feuds it may become a recurring tactic. Team A declares feud on Team B, then shifts 15 stalwarts into the company while shifting 15 weenies out. Even if feud costs are recalculated, Team B is now in a position where they must do the same, in whatever short time they have, or get pounded. The next day (or in a few hours), Team A shifts the stalwarts to another company that has influence. Rinse, lather, and repeat. This could happen on almost every feud. Is that the intent?

I don't think that's the intent. I think we're supposed to be closely tied to our company and have allied companies of stalwarts declare feud to fight alongside of us, not just slip ringers into our ranks.

How would I fix this? A couple options that I'll throw out there:

- During a feud cool-down, a company membership could be fixed - people can enter, but not leave the company. That prevents the stalwarts from jumping to the next company and a fight in the next hour, but it doesn't discourage the stalwarts from shifting companies whenever they aren't locked into a recent feuder.

- Companies could lose some proportial amount of Influence every time a person leaves; not one-for-one, but perhaps 50% of the proportional strength. So if a company has 20 members and 1000 Influence, then 10 members leave to a sister company, the company could lose 50% * (10 leaving/20 members) * 1000 Inf = 250 Influence to shifts. (I'm roughly assuming compounded losses, with some weenie added to the company each time a stalwart leaves.)
At some point, crowdforging suggestions seem to be like fan fiction. Some good, some bad, some repetitious and predictable. But maybe there are some gems out there.
Rynnik
Yrme
I don't think that's the intent. I think we're supposed to be closely tied to our company and have allied companies of stalwarts declare feud to fight alongside of us, not just slip ringers into our ranks.

I don't know if I am entirely sure that 'company churn' is necessarily a bad thing that needs to be 'prevented'. I'd certainly be very curious to have GW clarify their intent on it as I am almost sure (in fact it may have been in a dev chat) they considered this and weighed the pros and cons.

On the one side sticking with strong company identity is big bonus for players that want to go that route. In game identity has a huge place in recruiting and activities like that both on micro and macro levels. Players can really leverage that to some strong advantages if they chose to.

On the other hand the tactical advantages available right now from shifting companies at will has an impact on home settlement thornguard aggro, tower capping ticks, and spreading activity to where it will have the best effect etc.

Things like influence caps, feuding cost, crafting vault access, soon to be outpost worker bees and systems along these lines provide additional considerations and depth to any decision related to membership in companies.

Interestingly there seems to be a rather complex system of player motivations conflicting in choosing how to stock companies with players that is interesting and has consequences. I sorta like that. With very simply coded solutions, GW is generating very in-depth player decision processes, and in a tough area that plagued EVE for a good while, and that is nifty.

As a company hopper personally I wouldn't have any problem with GW shifting implementation to some sort of company lock down mechanic, but I am actually not at all sure yet that it would be a good or necessary part of the design.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Rynnik
I don't know if I am entirely sure that 'company churn' is necessarily a bad thing that needs to be 'prevented'.
If players are free to move back and forth between companies at a whim without penalty or cool-down, then exactly what point is there to having the company, verses simply having everyone in one settlement? The design battle cry is meaningful choices. If there is no downside to shifting companies repeatedly as desired, where is the meaningful choice in belonging to a company?
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Rynnik
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Rynnik
I don't know if I am entirely sure that 'company churn' is necessarily a bad thing that needs to be 'prevented'.
If players are free to move back and forth between companies at a whim without penalty or cool-down, then exactly what point is there to having the company, verses simply having everyone in one settlement? The design battle cry is meaningful choices. If there is no downside to shifting companies repeatedly as desired, where is the meaningful choice in belonging to a company?
smile

Did you even attempt to read beyond that sentence where I discussed some trade-offs and downsides to both aspects?
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Stilachio Thrax
I think they need controls to prevent excessive company churn. We are supposed to be making meaningful choices at every level of the game. To me, that extends to what settlement you choose, and most importantly, what company you choose. Being able to quickly drop a company and join a new one in order to game the feud system, WoT, or holding system seems to be the anti-thesis of "meaningful choice".

In addition to Yrme's suggestions, I add 1) a character cooldown period- after you leave a company, you cannot join another for 7 days 2) companies immediately lose the influence generated by any character they kick (to prevent kicking a character to avoid the personal cooldown).
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Nihimon
If the cost of a Feud is dependent upon which Characters are in both Companies when the Feud is declared, then it seems obvious that the Feud itself should only apply to those Characters. Ideally, the system would allow Characters to enter and leave each Company normally, but ensure that all of those Characters - and only those Characters - are subject to the Feud for its duration.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Rynnik
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Rynnik
I don't know if I am entirely sure that 'company churn' is necessarily a bad thing that needs to be 'prevented'.
If players are free to move back and forth between companies at a whim without penalty or cool-down, then exactly what point is there to having the company, verses simply having everyone in one settlement? The design battle cry is meaningful choices. If there is no downside to shifting companies repeatedly as desired, where is the meaningful choice in belonging to a company?
smile

Did you even attempt to read beyond that sentence where I discussed some trade-offs and downsides to both aspects?
Yes. I not only attempted it, but daunting though it was*, I actually read the whole thing. Then I responded to the core point. While your messages do sometimes get longer than I personally think they need to be, and I sometimes start to wonder if I'm interpreting them the way you intended, they have nowhere near approached those of Aveena, so I have felt no desire to stop reading part way through, so far. The trade-offs are (in my opinion) insufficient to address the underlying point of meaningful choices in company membership.

* (edit: that was a joke. The message was not especially long, so I'm not sure why anyone would read only part of it.)
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Duffy Swiftshadow
Depending on how much moving you're doing you could destroy a lot of influence or lower the cap below a banked number. There is a cost to the company for you leaving, even if it's only a temporary setback. It's not entirely a free action, but it depends on your specific use cases. I do think bailing on a company to avoid a feud should never be a viable solution, though I suppose if the company had a bunch of holdings that could cause them significant issues.
Nihimon
Yrme
… we shifted multiple characters into a company in order to gain a situational advantage in a tower fight.

Yrme, can you verify for me whether Characters who joined the Company were able to contribute Tower Capture points during that same server day? In the past, this has definitely not been the case, and I don't recall seeing any announcements that this had changed.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Duffy Swiftshadow
I can 2nd that in the past we tried moving people between companies and your new membership didn't count for tower capturing purposes until after the next downtime.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post