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
I totally understand that, but I also totally get that when Goonswarm first shows up they want to break your game, and while they will stick through the long haul to beat up the aristocracy, they will also game the system as best they can to immediately break your game while waiting for the day they can run your game.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Edam
Midnight
I totally understand that, but I also totally get that when Goonswarm first shows up they want to break your game, and while they will stick through the long haul to beat up the aristocracy, they will also game the system as best they can to immediately break your game while waiting for the day they can run your game.

Goons are just a boogie man used to scare new players in EVE these days. Their heyday was 4 or 5 years ago now. they have grown old and fat.

They (or to be more to the point the allaince they are part of CFC) do not even "run" EVE though they are big enough (40,000 members in CFC) to have a big influence on the CCP devs. They did trounce TEST last year but most of the time they sit in bluesec and manipulate the markets and play forum warrior trying to get game mechanic changes stopped that hurt their Doctrines and push for changes to nullify the Doctrines of opposition alliances. Burn Jita has become a publicity stunt they even sell "Gank Free Permits" to Care-bears for beforehand.

The famous "swarms of newbies in T1 frigates" days are more like 7 years ago and these days a new player cannot even join goons without paying cash to sub one of their forums for 6 months or more. Their defeat in 2010 of arch enemies BoB was a combination of infiltration/sabotage and a massive cap ship operation not swarms of newbies in frigates.

If you really want to make EVE comparisons … Golgotha behave a lot like the old school Goonswarm (the "good old days" that modern Goons get teary eyed about) and Brighthaven are more like the modern day renter/bluesec nullbear Goonswarm of today.
Midnight
Goons' coalition (CFC) ran the English speaking universe until the patch in which force projection changes were instituted (about 5 or 6 months ago). Now EVERYONE has to settle for just a piece of the pie, because you can't hotdrop onto a lone cruiser anywhere in null just for the lulz.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
I'd suggest the EBA looks more like BoB.

Maybe comparing today's fat happy Goons to BoB isn't unfair, but only if you've never heard Molle(?) haranguing BoB's allies.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Yrme
Midnight
a) influence has zero effect on an indie company's character development. A new company (of new players) can remain indie and train effectively for close to two months and that doesn't change whether they have zero influence or a million influence.

b) because no influence is required to be a bandit, requiring influence for SANCTIONED PvP CHANNELS PvPers without influence to banditry. Now Banditry DOES have rep penalties, but new players START with 5000 rep and regain rep in their sleep. My argument through 7 pages of this thread has been about steering PvPers AWAY from villainy.

The latest patch is practically an open invitation to Goonswarm while putting new hurdles in front of the PvP groups who don't want to break your game and don't want to be poisonous to the community.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if GW were to completely strip out using influence for feuds, then how exactly do you think your better systems would do anything to put hurdles in the way of some negative groups while encouraging the pure-PVP groups that don't want to break the game? Couldn't the negative groups just come in and wage influence-free feuds like you want to *and* strip mine hexes on the side? What would you propose GW do to prevent that?
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.
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Midnight
Nihimon
Why is influence required to PvP?

It's part of the "negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development".

a) influence has zero effect on an indie company's character development. A new company (of new players) can remain indie and train effectively for close to two months and that doesn't change whether they have zero influence or a million influence.

b) because no influence is required to be a bandit, requiring influence for SANCTIONED PvP CHANNELS PvPers without influence to banditry. Now Banditry DOES have rep penalties, but new players START with 5000 rep and regain rep in their sleep. My argument through 7 pages of this thread has been about steering PvPers AWAY from villainy.

The latest patch is practically an open invitation to Goonswarm while putting new hurdles in front of the PvP groups who don't want to break your game and don't want to be poisonous to the community.

Banditry was a part of the design, but it was never implemented in any meaningful way. They have all of the negatives, but none of the reward. Villainy was also a part of the meaningful interaction design, but the population is too small (not a target rich environment) and the existing community gets their panties in a bind when it does happen.

As for the worries of Unsanctioned PvP becoming an issue, being perpetrated by new companies, has it happened yet? "No" and it won't because there are too few targets and little to gain.

Invitations for groups like Goonswarm?? I've tried that, and "No", they and any other pure PvP group have shown no interest in an MMO so adverse to non arena style (consensual) PvP.

What PFO is is a crafting sim, a virtual borefest for anyone who likes to have a sense of danger. There is zero sense of danger in PFO. Be honest, what thrill is there in running an escalation? Even if you die a few times (unlikely as that is) you lose very little. As soon as you get a major drop, you will run away and bank it.

GW needs to take a major look at its design philosophy, what it's doing now isn't working.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
Midnight
Yrme
Midnight
a) influence has zero effect on an indie company's character development. A new company (of new players) can remain indie and train effectively for close to two months and that doesn't change whether they have zero influence or a million influence.

b) because no influence is required to be a bandit, requiring influence for SANCTIONED PvP CHANNELS PvPers without influence to banditry. Now Banditry DOES have rep penalties, but new players START with 5000 rep and regain rep in their sleep. My argument through 7 pages of this thread has been about steering PvPers AWAY from villainy.

The latest patch is practically an open invitation to Goonswarm while putting new hurdles in front of the PvP groups who don't want to break your game and don't want to be poisonous to the community.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if GW were to completely strip out using influence for feuds, then how exactly do you think your better systems would do anything to put hurdles in the way of some negative groups while encouraging the pure-PVP groups that don't want to break the game? Couldn't the negative groups just come in and wage influence-free feuds like you want to *and* strip mine hexes on the side? What would you propose GW do to prevent that?

Well, I didn't want to suggest an influence cost to gather, because ages ago my rep-cost-for-conflict-gathering idea was wildly unpopular. Perhaps even the most hated crowdforging idea ever. But unfriendly gathering will remain a thing until we can criminal flag it, which is the eventual solution, so maybe we can just endure until then if that is only a matter of weeks. But summer is a particularly volatile time for getting new players (who also might not stay once school begins). I think we're particularly vulnerable for a few weeks. But anything that penalizes or inconveniences gatherers will create howls from this community, so I'll let YOU tread that minefield and be the bad guy smile, people already think I hate gatherers, even though I *am* one.

But… when we can criminal flag offensive gathering (and maybe a wide array of activities) I worry that holding influence costs are too SMALL in relation to feuding costs. For 100 influence I get to plop down a holding? Today a holding is just a conflict point for content and an element of settlement support. But at the point where a holding lets me make the rules, if I can make the rules to allow me to PvP nearly anyone all day long every day in that area, 100 influence may be too cheap compared to the influence it costs to feud a single company for one hour.

Holdings look like they'll give you a stationary territorial PvP creator against many opponents regardless of the opponents' power. Feuds give you a transitory ability to PvP a single company ANYWHERE but for a very small window of time and you lose 20% of the influence every time.

We might need BOTH holdings and feuds to exist. But once criminal flags are instituted, holding costs may be way too cheap for the influence they cost and the sanctioned PvP they allow (especially if it includes killing your enemy with guard protection similar in ease to jumping an enemy who is silly enough to visit your home settlement).

If it will also cost influence for each action criminalized and/or every player that isn't allowed those actions, then maybe holding costs are ok. But we need to keep an eye on that. If territorialityy allows you to exclude too many players too cheaply from a hex, it could very very unfriendly to new players of all play types, while overly favoring those who got here first. My evil alignment characters want territoriality… a lot. But I also want a game that is fair to new arrivals.

The remarks I've seen on forums yesterday that feuds cost too much may lead to the solution for a new PvP company. The lower the cost, the better for new players. Also, if we can provide additional influence earning possibilities through sanctioned PvP (e.g. veteran companies paying the new company influence to join a feud on top of the additional feud cost of having more participants) we can decrease our channeling of PvPers to villainy. New ways to get influence through sanctioned PvP can't be here in time for summer arrivals, but when they get a chance, the devs might want to consider it.

I agree that influence free feuding could be problematic but even more problematic is a system that channels PvPers into villainy at zero influence cost while rep is a far cheaper currency than influence. I think rep costs and rep gain were close to being just right, but with influence requiring more effort and coming more slowly I have to think influence is broken and will channel PvPers to spend a more affordable currency (rep), which gives us… villainy.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Too many road blocks and hurdles to PvP. Too many chores to maintain a settlement. So much easier to just level skills up to 8 or 9 and live out of an NPC settlement. PvP when you feel like it (a solo target presents himself) and use T1 characters in gank squads.

Escalations, particularly the T1 escalations are easy to manage with T1 +3 armor and T2 +0 weapon. This is actually sufficient equipment for T2 mobs as well, but you will likely die a few times when grouped in larger numbers.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
thecrookedman
I think PvP companies should exist in a limited extent. For instance imagine hiring a traveling band of mercinaries to defend your holding or put down escalations. I do not think that purely PvP companies should be totally independent. They will need supplies and gear and a home settlement to maintain themselves. In this sence a settlement geared towards military power will be useful for PvP geared companies.
some are born into greatness. Others have it thrusted inside of them. -Fatal Absolution
Nihimon
Midnight
Nihimon
Why is influence required to PvP?

It's part of the "negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development".

a) influence has zero effect on an indie company's character development. A new company (of new players) can remain indie and train effectively for close to two months and that doesn't change whether they have zero influence or a million influence.

b) because no influence is required to be a bandit, requiring influence for SANCTIONED PvP CHANNELS PvPers without influence to banditry. Now Banditry DOES have rep penalties, but new players START with 5000 rep and regain rep in their sleep. My argument through 7 pages of this thread has been about steering PvPers AWAY from villainy.

The latest patch is practically an open invitation to Goonswarm while putting new hurdles in front of the PvP groups who don't want to break your game and don't want to be poisonous to the community.

Influence is not required to PvP. It's required to PvP without mechanical consequences. The reason it's required is to ensure there are political/social consequences. It's part of a multi-layered approach to constrain PvP so that the game doesn't degenerate into a toxic murder simulator.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post