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.

Why is influence required to PvP?

Midnight
Duffy Swiftshadow
The intent of this game is that no action that causes conflict is 'free'.

Then why doesn't offensive gathering have an influence cost?

Strip-mining an opponent PRODUCES influence. Killing off an opponent's escalations PRODUCES influence and rewards you with victory markers to do even more stuff to create conflict. PvE is currently the most effective form of conflict in the game (and Pve has provoked every war I know of in the game) and requires ZERO influence to start, zero influence to continue, all while producing influence.

Yet a company of simple soldiers has to engage in non-consensual PvP to earn the right to consensual PvP? Because that is the only PvP path that requires zero influence to start, zero influence to continue, and will produce influence if you can find victims.

Temporary sanity check… why am *I* the person stuck arguing for people's access to CONSENSUAL PvP? Shouldn't I be terrorizing a coal field, somewhere?
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Duffy Swiftshadow
That's because all the other interdependent activities do not directly take away another persons work. That's why it's free, that's why its the basis upon which the rest of the game is built. That's why those activities build up influence that you can spend to force conflict. A brand new company should not be able to enter the game and just start 'legit' PvPing. That is good and intended. You need to be well rounded, you need to attract people of every play type, even if you utilize their efforts differently. You must actually play smart and as part of a group that weighs it's choices. That is give and take, that is meaningful interaction. A company should never just be simple soldiers, because if they are they don't really have anything to lose.

In my opinion making it easier to arbitrarily fight people is going to have the opposite effect you want, it will drive away the 'builders' and exchange them for people that just want to fight. Adding those restrictions back in later when it's 'acceptable' will be too late to bring those people back.
Midnight
Duffy Swiftshadow
That's because all the other interdependent activities do not directly take away another persons work.

Non-consensual PvP doesn't take away from another person's work? Non-consensual PvP requires zero influence, and that fact is going to be channeling new PvP companies into villainy.

I'm curious if the same community members who talked me into avoiding non-consensual PvP these last 3 months (who I can fairly characterize as builders) are also in favor of an influence system that channels would-be consensual combatants to villainy?

I mean, it is easy to suggest that PvPers should just grind influence picking daisies, but we all know that isn't going to happen. They'll either come for good consensual fights under a system that allows it, or they'll grind PLAYERS for influence.

Or, of course, the game might just continue to decline in active player numbers.

We're channeling new PvP companies to villainy, and apparently, the only person who recognizes this is a former villain.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Duffy Swiftshadow
You realize Feuds are non-consensual? You don't get to reject a feud you don't like.

But I assume you're talking outside of feuds, which comes with severe penalties therefore it's not 'free'. If you are willing to suffer those repercussions then by all means proceed. If not, then you have to build up the required structure to act as you desire, which will take some time. The game is designed for long-term play as a part of a well rounded group whether it's within a company or within a settlement.

If you can't spend a month or two getting everything up and running to actually fight someone (or join someone that already did the work) then this is the wrong game for you. Nothing about this game has ever been advertised as quick and dirty PvP. It's supposed to be about building something and having to use those PvP systems to maintain it. That's how you make it meaningful. The game doesn't want your PvP all the time only companies to be effective or efficient, that's the whole point. If you are selling yourself that way you have made some mistakes.

Also wanna point out, last patch all you had was non-consensual rep loss PvP and a broken WoT system no one really used much. After last patch you still have non-consensual rep loss PvP, but now you have no rep loss PvP with Feuds, specifically for targeting towers. As far as I can tell it looks like the options have only increased and they are planning to add more options, it's just gonna take time and those options are only valuable if all the underlying stuff is there to go with them and give the fighting purpose.

What you seem to keep proposing every few months is to knock down all the barriers to PvP, which they have repeatedly said is not going to happen. Hell, they have explicitly stated they would rather shut the game down then see it turn into another free for all PvP MMO. So either it closes down cause everyone stops playing or it closes down cause they remove all the restrictions and it turns into murder hobo sim. Either way same result, so what exactly are you arguing for again?

When they add more breadth of activities instead of depth, you'll see more and more spikes of interest. Trying to take the same piece of the puzzle and manipulate it to be the be all end all isn't gonna work either way.
Midnight
Duffy Swiftshadow
You realize Feuds are non-consensual? You don't get to reject a feud you don't like.

I could argue that dropping a holding is tacit consent to your eventual PvP… but that doesn't fully engulf the feuding mechanic.

I see some, but only a little community support for my side of this crowdforging, so all I can do is to once again remind everyone that requiring influence for sanctioned PvP… channels new PvP companies to villainy… while I prepare my I-told-you-so post for the future.

The coming wave of new villains will be a direct result of the latest patch and will have been crowdforged by community indifference to warnings about it.

The coming wave of strip-mining as war (by PvP-ers who are not allergic to PvE) will also be directly related to the fact that such offensive activities require no influence, and will be meant to provoke companies fat with influence into feuding them.

Enjoy the new and improved emergent player behaviors.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Edam
The game will gradually acquire more PvP and as a consequence most (but not all) of the current very PvE focused player base will gradually drift away to be replaced by PvP or PvP tolerant players.

If you try and push that change too early you will just push out those PvE players who enjoy this initial world building stage before there are enough PvP players to replace them.

At present there is not even that much to PvP for - other than tears and the rather dubious credit of being a well known name on a tiny starter game with a miniature player base.

All in good time.
Decius
Influence is required so that a state of Feud or War will be meaningful to the group that declares it. It is presumed that the declaring group will make it meaningful to the target group.

The absence of a cost to Feuds and Wars would be that permanent feuds and wars are declared, and that they mean nothing in the long run; see the political climate so far (but please don't turn this into another mudslinging contest).
Midnight
Edam
The game will gradually acquire more PvP and as a consequence most (but not all) of the current very PvE focused player base will gradually drift away to be replaced by PvP or PvP tolerant players.

If you try and push that change too early you will just push out those PvE players who enjoy this initial world building stage before there are enough PvP players to replace them.

At present there is not even that much to PvP for - other than tears and the rather dubious credit of being a well known name on a tiny starter game with a miniature player base.

All in good time.

The new PvPers are coming. Some have just arrived in the Paizocon wave, and more are organizing to arrive. I don't see any need for them to replace PvE-ers. In fact, the ones who hate grinding will appreciate PvE-ers and months from now the game will coerce them into settlement interdependence with PvE-ers. Which is why I HATE seeing them being channeled into non-consensual villainy which will absolutely poison relations in the community when it is all so unnecessary.

The new PvP companies who are inclined to join settlements immediately and sublimate their identity into a greater structure will do fine. In fact my settlement has seen immediate benefits, and I'm happy to have more people like me who get with the program and fit in.

But I have always rooted for the SENSOUs and AGCs in this game, too… companies who are slow to take a knee before the alpha aristocracy. And more of THOSE type companies are coming, too. The coming mechanics for seizing inactive settlements means they can forge their own independent tales/culture/identity if we'll just let them. And if we can just avoid crippling their play, they'll stay and drag even more folks into PFO every week.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
Decius
Influence is required so that a state of Feud or War will be meaningful to the group that declares it. It is presumed that the declaring group will make it meaningful to the target group.

The absence of a cost to Feuds and Wars would be that permanent feuds and wars are declared, and that they mean nothing in the long run; see the political climate so far (but please don't turn this into another mudslinging contest).

Such a concept makes sense in the big picture of the game design. It makes sense to your powerbloc and to mine with thousands of influence to work with and administer wisely.

But it doesn't stop the newly arrived PvP companies from being channeled into villainy. Perhaps there should be a way for established companies to spend influence to hire companies into sanctioned PvP. A cost about equal to having them as part of the feuding company in feud costs, and when the influence gets paid, some fraction of it is KEPT by the hireling company.

Feel free to find the exploits in that idea, or to crowdforge alternatives for a PvP company that doesn't want to pick daisies.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Decius
Purely PvP settlements should not be able to exist. Settlement should have to be fully engaged with every aspect of the game- and currently they have to be in order to thrive.

Exploring the map for resource locations and quantities is already a major thing; gathering and crafting those resources is likewise critical; PvE is absolutely required, and in massive amounts if we are to ever make +5 holding kits. PvP to protect all of that.

None of those major types of gameplay can be effectively outsourced to a different settlement, although they can be done partially.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post