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

Drogon
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.

Yes, I know the max is 15 and I understand the metagaming advantage but I don't think GW could have intended to be manipulated this way, or maybe they did and don't see any problem with it…. I could be good with either way honestly, I like to see people get creative and figure out ways to work inside the system provided and gain tactical advantaged using their ingenuity. I still want to see a change from company based to settlement based as to who shows up red in the open PVP windows…this would make PVP a lot more fun for me. (Sorry don't mean to hijack your thread Yrme…smile
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. "
Tyncale
Maybe they should only allow characters that train XP to log into the game. That would solve a lot of the 1k-alts problems. It still would be possible to game the Inf system but much much harder.
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
You are a Troll
^that…PLEASE that.
Quijenoth Starkiller
Tyncale
Maybe they should only allow characters that train XP to log into the game. That would solve a lot of the 1k-alts problems. It still would be possible to game the Inf system but much much harder.

So assuming you want to activate training on a 1k alt for an hour (its only 100 xp) you could earn the influence for that time.

I'd be all for this as long as it doesn't break DTs. If I recall you couldn't change training on DT accounts because it was bugged and doing so would prevent duel training. Has it been fixed?
Quijenoth Starkiller Viceroy of Callambea
Company Leader of Beyond the Grave - www.beyond-pfo.com
Crafting Planner
Elsworth Sugarfoot
IMO the existence of 1k alts is dumb. There's no need to ever really switch training to a different character. All it creates is gaming the system via alts. At this point though there isn't really any going back.
thecrookedman
As I said before
some are born into greatness. Others have it thrusted inside of them. -Fatal Absolution
Duffy Swiftshadow
@Elsworth

Crafting and eventually the 'worker' system are the only reason to ever shift XP to an alt for some time, the separate queues are a really powerful thing especially once you get into T2 where higher + refining can take a few hours and crafting items takes half a day to several days.

For combat, gathering, or hauling purposes, yea no reason to redirect XP.
Kitsune
Regarding company-hopping to skirt around influence calculations based on company size, OR to assist in the capturing of towers:

I'm really on the fence whether to call it a "bug" ("not working as intended"smile or a "problem" ("working as intended" but obviously causing problems and needs to be addressed). Has GW officially declared the company-hopping "strategy" as not-working-as-intended?

Currently, I think it comes down to how each player/group feels about it. If someone wants to do something that might be viewed as "shady," but otherwise playing inside the rules of the game, then so be it. What's the worst that can happen at this time? Are we really going to lose subs because people are playing this tactic? Doubtful. Will the players/groups that are taking advantage of this lose "reputation" (not in-game rep) for doing this? Perhaps. Will those players/groups that are opposed to taking advantage of this as a strategy lose "reputation" for if they were to label the others as "cheaters" (or words close to it)? Perhaps.

So, after thinking and writing all that, I'm thinking:

Sure, let people take advantage of this. Those who are vocal against it most definitely have a valid point, but I believe that nothing should be done to prevent it now, or later. However, I believe that penalties should be implemented in EE9 that would discourage this kind of strategy. In the meantime, we'll all just have to deal with the mechanics as they are currently written, and play the damn game as it is now.
Duffy Swiftshadow
They said they are aware of it and it's ability to manipulate the feud calculation is not desired, but they aren't sure how they want to fix it or what limitations they want to put on it yet.
Kitsune
Duffy Swiftshadow
They said they are aware of it and it's ability to manipulate the feud calculation is not desired, but they aren't sure how they want to fix it or what limitations they want to put on it yet.

Thanks.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post