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

Stilachio Thrax
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.

Someone trying to avoid a feud is one thing, but a minor annoyance. I'm concerned about a company holding all of the towers for a settlement, then adding ~6 1000pt alts and anyone with any XP leaving, so the influence cost for any company attempting to take the towers will skyrocket to the point that no one will feud them and they have effectively made their towers immune to takeover.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Tink says Stab
That is no longer the case. Switching companies will immediately update which company you capture towers for.
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Rynnik
Caldeathe Baequiannia
The trade-offs are (in my opinion) insufficient to address the underlying point of meaningful choices in company membership.
Okay fair enough. I'll leave it there as I don't understand what or why you think the trade-offs aren't sufficient, but I do want to say I liked your joke. I don't know if I have seen you make one before responding to me but it was nice.

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.

I can 100% verify that you can contribute tower points on the same server day as you join a company. I wasn't at all aware actually that there was a point where it wasn't the case.

Stilachio Thrax
Someone trying to avoid a feud is one thing, but a minor annoyance. I'm concerned about a company holding all of the towers for a settlement, then adding ~6 1000pt alts and anyone with any XP leaving, so the influence cost for any company attempting to take the towers will skyrocket to the point that no one will feud them and they have effectively made their towers immune to takeover.
That will mostly go away with towers for what it is worth on top of that company losing all but 300 of its influence etc. My understanding of 'workers' on holdings will be pressure enough to take that away all on its own imo.

Has anyone looked at the numbers yet btw? Are the numbers enough that it makes a substantial difference in ability or will to feud a particular target?
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Duffy Swiftshadow
@Rynnik

That is a good point, towers won't matter eventually and only influence purchased structures will be target-table via feuds which will discourage tactics like that.
Nihimon
Tinkerton
Switching companies will immediately update which company you capture towers for.

Thanks.

Rynnik
[I can 100% verify that you can contribute tower points on the same server day as you join a company.

I actually think this should be allowed in most cases as it gives new Characters a concrete way to contribute right away. I just think it should never be possible for a Character to be effective in two separate Companies on the same server day.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I don't see the discouragement. Perhaps I am missing something.

Company "A" has 25 advanced people and four somewhat upgraded holdings that use the majority of their influence. A bunch of those characters want to do something else. Half a dozen floating 1K XP alts join that company then the half dozen experienced characters leave to join company "B" to do [whatever]. Influence is preserved, because it is only based on size. [Whatever] happens. Experienced characters return to company "A" and alts leave. Company is exactly as it was a couple of hours before, with no loss of influence or degradation of Holding/outpost skill base. What discouraged that?
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Rynnik
I'll leave it there as I don't understand what or why you think the trade-offs aren't sufficient, but I do want to say I liked your joke. I don't know if I have seen you make one before responding to me but it was nice.
I don't usually mark them, and my sense of humour is generally acerbic. I may not have, or they may have been easily missed.

I don't see any of the trade-offs as functioning. None of the existing downsides actually stop anyone from doing anything. They are at most a minor inconvenience to get around. There is no penalty at all for changing companies on a whim, as long as you have an alt to preserve Influence before you leave. As long as anyone can invite as many temporary players as they want, by asking for more invitations, there is never any need for a company to lose any influence except for the percentage of what they choose to spend on feuds. As things stand, there is a minor difference between a settlement having one company or many companies in the cost of feuding them and only if cost changes with bringing more people in. If cost is flat upon expenditure, there is even less reason for any company to ever be larger than they need to maintain a single upgraded holding except during the actual feud, when they can flood it with extras at will.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Yrme
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.

Wouldn't this mean that the company declaring the feud would be able to slip ringers in to their force, but their opponent would not? Perhaps the Influence cost would dissuade us in most cases; I think having victory with a much stronger force generally is the price we would pay to gain our objectives.
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.
Drogon
If GW would just change the mechanic so that everyone in your settlement is not red and can be healed during the PVP windows then there will be no real need to be switching back and forth between companies from a tactical battle sense. The only reason that would remain is the point capping at a faster rate which I guess in itself is still a valid enough reason. I just really want to eliminate tabbing through friendlies and not being able to be healed by our healers due to the mechanic that only allows company members to do so. Make it Settlement based, the tech is already there I believe.
HpoD - "I have, however, sat and watched as others took things more personally (on both sides) and became zealots, charging forward on a shining white horse into a pile of shit. Forum Warriors at their peak, striding the battlefield knee deep in the bloody, broken arguments of their adversaries before the burning village of their credibility….Chill guys. "
Edam
Drogon
The only reason that would remain is the point capping at a faster rate which I guess in itself is still a valid enough reason.

Well no the max people that can gain points is 15.

The metagaming advantage would come from having the same 15 people cap towers for multiple different companies that then "shrink" and cost a fortune in influence to feud.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post