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.

Bug with creating a Feud with a small company and then stacking the company to attack

Banesama
Tabomo
Then, people will just switch before declaring the Feud. Currently, the "easy switch" mechanism cuts both ways, because defending allies can also switch to the defending company to help in that regard. They either need to make company switches take 24 hours to process (which HEAVILY favors the attacker), or do nothing and let both sides benefit. There is no easy way to "fix" it.
If they switch before declaring the Feud, then the influence cost will kick in, so no problem there.
"I'm a simple man. All I want is enough sleep for two normal men, enough whiskey for three, and enough women for four."
Walter Slovotsky
Banesama
Phyllain
They could just make it s that once you declare a feud, and have a feud declared on you no one can join or leave.
Phyllain understands, just used shorter sentence than I did. smile
"I'm a simple man. All I want is enough sleep for two normal men, enough whiskey for three, and enough women for four."
Walter Slovotsky
Banesama
Smitty
Not sure about telling a company they cant recruit for two days. Or someone locking out that company by fueding it continuously with multiple companies.

Feuds do not last days. Last I check they last an hour to maybe 2 or 3 hours. Companies are not going to continuously feud, it will cost to much influence.

A person could still apply to a feuding company, but won't be able to be accepted until the company is no longer feuding.
"I'm a simple man. All I want is enough sleep for two normal men, enough whiskey for three, and enough women for four."
Walter Slovotsky
Tuoweit
Banesama
A person could still apply to a feuding company, but won't be able to be accepted until the company is no longer feuding.

They could even be accepted, but not "count" towards PvP objectives until the next downtime - it was already this way previously, not sure why it was changed.
Decius
Banesama
Smitty
Not sure about telling a company they cant recruit for two days. Or someone locking out that company by fueding it continuously with multiple companies.

Feuds do not last days. Last I check they last an hour to maybe 2 or 3 hours. Companies are not going to continuously feud, it will cost to much influence.

A person could still apply to a feuding company, but won't be able to be accepted until the company is no longer feuding.
48 hours is the current maximum length.
Midnight
Tuoweit
Midnight
With the feuding bug, anyone feuding is going to lose ALL their influence, so there isn't much motive to cut your influence expense through the tactic you described, today. Whether it costs 80 or 100 to feud a company, you'll lose ALL YOUR influence.

But it costs far less effort to build up to another feud afterwards if you can make it cost 50 influence instead of 150.

The feud bug will be fixed long before my company earns back another 50 influence.

My company did a feud a few days ago (which didn't make any news and isn't what Cheatle is referring to). We had a big 124 influence (and no holdings) before opening our very first feud window. Our feud cost was cited as costing 81 influence (of which we would supposedly regain most of it back over time after the feud, right?). Yet we now stand at influence 2 (probably earned after the feud and I'm not sure if the feud bug will eventually eat that too). On comms, someone suggested the feud cost keeps getting subtracted again each uptime even though the feud is over. I wasn't monitoring our influence enough to prove or disprove that speculation. 120+ influence has just vanished. It isn't banked, or applied elsewhere, it is just GONE. There's no way my company will earn enough influence to feud again until well after the bug is fixed.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Vrel Vusoryn
The "no one in or out on both sides once feud declared" would work for the situation we currently have. That said once the current bug is fixed if this is removed then I think the system should be modified that if the feuding company increases the number of members AFTER they have declared the feud the system should crank up the Influence cost accordingly. The same should apply if their opponent feuds them in turn which would incur a Influence cost to them.
General of the Grey
Grey Guard

The Grey Guard is currently looking for adventurers and craftsfolk to join this lore based military company. Based in the great settlement of Phaeros and one of the military companies of the EBA alliance. Visit us today and learn how you can join! Once you register you will have access to the application form to join TSV(Phaeros) and, once accepted, then the Grey Guard.
Smitty
I do not feel this is a bug.

If a group comes into PFO and wants to take over a settlement, they need to bring at least 20 people, they will need to break those people into companies, but will also need those same people to do things in all the companies they create.
Having lock out mechanisms for 2 days would kill smaller start up settlements , if settlement wants to create a settlement near a large one, the mechanic for the large established company to fight this , should not be well lets trap them in the company they used to feud for 2 days while we have one of our other companies take everything from their holding company.

Putting in restrictions on moving companies is a bad idea there is just too much control given to the larger established settlements ,being able to enforce their will on newer ones. I get these older established settlements will have advantages, but putting in a restriction like this is an auto win for them and that shouldn’t be the case..

..
Also as it pertains to this, As I followed the game Pre Alpha forums I was under the impression players would be able to join multiple companies( Thought it was up to three or something), Not sure what happened to that idea, perhaps some folks can point me to where that was completely cancelled but last I heard I was just not implemented yet.

So being part of multiple companies is certainly not a bug, if doing so was actually part of the game design…

Brighthaven Leader
@Smitty, if this mechanic continues as is, it will deter a lot more people from playing than will encourage.

There needs to be something changed about it, whether its stopping people from entering or not. Now, to be frank I don't think your theory has full weight, because that would entail a large organization holding you down constantly wasting huge amounts of influence. They could spend far less and be fairly good at stopping a group by just placing holdings.
Brighthaven is a Neutral Good settlement focused on defending its citizens and its allies from negative fringe based PvP (Player Killing and Griefing) while striving to become a large and shining beacon for Good. Whether you wish to benefit from this protection or you love PvP and wish to assist in providing this protection, Brighthaven aims to be the home and support center for you!
Smitty
I don’t see how changing between companies deters people from playing, actually I feel 100% contrary to that statement.

Having a mechanic in the game which allows a leadership core outside of my own settlement dictate my actions in game is one thing that would cause me to examine if I want to play this game anymore.

I didn’t run the numbers on my example, but placing holdings is not cheap from the conversations I hear on voice comms, meanwhile feuds seem pretty cheap ( all though those are short ones..) but ill leave that math to people that like to do it.

The point I want to make is companies should not be able to tell opposing companies who is involved in confrontations. Likewise defenders shouldn’t be locked in to just defending with only a certain player list. Leaders should be able to move people to where they need them.

I think GW recognizes this as well.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post