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.

Fixing the Feud Mechanic so it can not be gamed

Midnight
I don't think any company has actually DONE what Tinkerton described can be done.

I especially know of NO 1,000k alt companies with towers. Nor any one member companies with towers.

Regardless, he just told you and the devs that it is even more exploitable than you had imagined, and if any company *has* done what he described, they can immediately undo that by taking their members back if the devs didn't intend one member companies to hold towers.

Anyone who read the patch notes should have understood that sooner rather than later the extremes of the power that the feuding mechanic tries to measure would occur (the least powerful company possible versus the most powerful company existing).

Tinkerton's post is your wake-up call and your chance to crowdforge a better feud system or a better influence system.

I'd categorize the forum theme this last 24 hours as a whole lot of wake up calls. The influence system isn't going to give this community the game you want. EVERYONE needs to take a good hard look at it and its various ramifications. We've only had time to scratch the surface of it, and I'm curious what further attention by MANY players who know how players think will expose tomorrow.

This even harks back to my "we need more than 5 dozen people PvPing to have informed crowdforging of PvP" posts.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
AlexanderDamocles
Dear god, this game has enough stuff to worry about without digging up stuff from 5 months ago. You're better than this. Focus on the topic at hand (problematic feuds) and not things that *no one can change anymore*.
Tink says Stab
Decius
Did anyone see the ways that it was exploitable and not immediately understand it to be "some condition, combination of actions, location, or feature that is broken or provides you an advantage you should not have due to a bug" to do any of the things under discussion?

Given that nobody has done what I described, yes?

In the same way that I'm not camping people at banks, even though I can (reported). Or exploiting the current charge mechanics to launch myself in any direction, rather than just towards my target (also reported).
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Smitty
As i posted this in the bug thread, figured id would put it here as well…
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 people to do things for 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 game to the system, if doing so was actually part of the game design…

Lee Hammock
SO side note, the idea of 1 person companies holding towers only lasts as long as the tower system, which should be going away at EE10. At that point it's all holdings and outposts, which require Influence to hold, so one person companies can't do it.

We currently are looking at changing the way Influence for feuds is calculated. I'd rather fix things on that end rather than limit people from joining or leaving companies as that would make things really rough for some groups, plus I'm not a big fan of putting blockers towards social organization in general. The first step for this is going to be a minimum Influence to declare a feud such that a group of 1K starting characters would have put time into earning enough Influence that their players would likely be better off just using their mains to declare the feud (granted that number is going to take some fine tuning). Further adjustments to feud costs are likely to happen from there.
Nihimon
Lee,

It seems to me that recalculating the cost of the Feud in order to factor in new recruits is really important. This could be done by script at the time the Feud actually starts, and every hour (or every 5 minutes or whatever) thereafter. While the Feud is active, new recruits could be accepted into the Company normally, but would not be "active" until this script ran. That way, people jumping around wouldn't be effective until the Influence cost has been updated to reflect their participation. If at any time the Company doesn't have the Influence to support the updated cost, the Feud would be immediately canceled.

It might even be reasonable to put the same activation delay for recruits into the Target Company and factor that into the new Influence Cost calculation done by the script. And again, this would only need to be done during active Feuds.

We've also asked ourselves whether it makes sense to put a cooldown on leaving a Company, so that you can't join another until after Server Downtime.

[Edit] It should be obvious, but the Influence Cost recalculation should never reduce the cost of the Feud based on changes in the Feuding Company, or increase the cost of the Feud based on changes in the Target Company.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Thorgrim Foegrinder
Perhaps it might be less strain on resources to have a snapshot taken at the time the feud is declared of the membership of both the company declaring the feud and the target company. Reference that snapshot roster for tower/holding capture, flagging of individuals, or any other feud related functions rather than the updated roster. It may be as simple as a conditional statement checking for a feud, if one is active then check the snapshot instead of the actual membership. It seems to me that this would be the least amount of programming and the least use of resources, but I don't know the specific architecture being used to say for certain.
[Sylva] is the premier Nature based settlement in Pathfinder Online. We're a family that has come together through the game, and we're one of the most active settlements currently. We have a solid roleplaying foundation and are a home to those who both love and hate PvP.

[The Seventh Veil] is a meta-game group with members in several different settlements. We've created many guides and spreadsheets for the game that are referenced by hundreds of players on a daily basis and we maintain multiple websites like [Goblinary.com], [The Storehouse], and [The Unofficial PFO Atlas] to make information more readily available. The Seventh Veil promotes positive game play at all times.
Lee Hammock
Nihimon
Lee,

It seems to me that recalculating the cost of the Feud in order to factor in new recruits is really important. This could be done by script at the time the Feud actually starts, and every hour (or every 5 minutes or whatever) thereafter. While the Feud is active, new recruits could be accepted into the Company normally, but would not be "active" until this script ran. That way, people jumping around wouldn't be effective until the Influence cost has been updated to reflect their participation. If at any time the Company doesn't have the Influence to support the updated cost, the Feud would be immediately canceled.

It might even be reasonable to put the same activation delay for recruits into the Target Company and factor that into the new Influence Cost calculation done by the script. And again, this would only need to be done during active Feuds.

We've also asked ourselves whether it makes sense to put a cooldown on leaving a Company, so that you can't join another until after Server Downtime.

[Edit] It should be obvious, but the Influence Cost recalculation should never reduce the cost of the Feud based on changes in the Feuding Company, or increase the cost of the Feud based on changes in the Target Company.


This was actually the original plan but in the implementation of feuds we found this was something we couldn't actually do without a lot of holes in it.
Nihimon
Thanks for the reply, Lee.

Gaming the costs isn't really a huge issue to me. If a group wants to do that, that's on them.

My only real concern right now is the bug that's making it impossible (or at least extremely risky) for Companies that are playing "within the lines" to take back Towers.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
thecrookedman
I think a few issues described above can be fixed by adding influence levels based on how long you have been in the same company. For instance a new player who joined a company will not add as much influence as a member who has been in the same company for a week. Obviously a cap for maximum influence one character can create is a must. For new members who are joining a company that is engaged in a feud, companies should have an option for the new player to sit out on the current feud or pay extra influence to include them. In total I think these steps might help solve the problems of a small company starting a feud and having an extra 30 people join for free PvP. My ideas might reduce company hopping so people will want to stay in the same company. This will decrease bandwaggoning from one company to the next.
some are born into greatness. Others have it thrusted inside of them. -Fatal Absolution
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post