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?

Duffy Swiftshadow
Midnight
I'm happy to crowdforge and I'm used to dissent. But, by repeatedly mis-characterizing my posts in the most unflattering manner possible in this thread you're just being an unfair creep, and having never seen that in you before, I'm seriously surprised. I've always liked you and hadn't noticed you doing that to anyone before.

I'll claim my bad, since you never seemed to offer a solution I assumed you were falling back on your old point as you previously argued for less and less restrictions on PvP in the past. I assumed this was a new resurgence of that line of thinking. Tho I must mention you do keep picking one or two points out of the 15 I mention, ignore the rest, and repeat yourself, which forces me to quasi repeat myself and thus we get the cycle we're in.

The solution if anything is more restrictions on the brand new groups, it's not to lighten the restrictions because you have to lighten them across the board. And you have to take planned features into account. Factions allow day one mutual PvP, so if you just want to fight it's there. The law system counters things like swarms strip mining. Though if someone can field enough people across enough time there is literally nothing you could do to stop them anyways unless there are hard mechanic in place to do so. Don't forget Law options are supposed to be tied to your alignment and your settlement. With the influence diminishing returns the ability to claim large swaths and exact your laws over them will probably be pretty difficult and any feuds could be prohibitively expensive for large companies. Which would then mean settlement war is your best option but that's driven by DI which is limited by other factors and makes your entire settlement vulnerable to counter attacks.
Yrme
Midnight
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).

Settlements set laws, not companies, but they also have to enforce the laws or they suffer corruption. Settlements will need to field a good PvP force to act as its enforcers, or they will really need to limit what is a criminal act, or they will need to deal with soaring upkeep costs and the inability to place new structures.

One thing that holdings do bring to the PvP game is that they make it much clearer where PvP will take place. The settlement sets their PvP window: "our people will be online to PvP at this time." The feuding company announces the feud: "We intend to fight the Aardvark Company from this time to this time." The Aardvarks have one or two holdings. We now have a time and a place where PvP will occur. The stakes are the holdings. I think it's a solid reason why holdings should remain cheap at low levels - new companies can place a holding for a relatively low ante and fight defensively.
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.
Midnight
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.

In Eve the military pretty much runs the game.

In PFO any PvP company can bring 6 guys and be recruited into a settlement the same day, and be showered with even more goodies than we shower other newbies with. I already see the:

one new PvP player > one new PvE player

equation being practiced in recruiting, and not just in my PvP-centric powerbloc.

So maybe their importance to settlements (REAL influencesmile) makes up for their inability to do 2 months indie in their specialization, even though every other specialization can.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
Duffy Swiftshadow
Midnight
I'm happy to crowdforge and I'm used to dissent. But, by repeatedly mis-characterizing my posts in the most unflattering manner possible in this thread you're just being an unfair creep, and having never seen that in you before, I'm seriously surprised. I've always liked you and hadn't noticed you doing that to anyone before.

I'll claim my bad, since you never seemed to offer a solution I assumed you were falling back on your old point as you previously argued for less and less restrictions on PvP in the past. I assumed this was a new resurgence of that line of thinking. Tho I must mention you do keep picking one or two points out of the 15 I mention, ignore the rest, and repeat yourself, which forces me to quasi repeat myself and thus we get the cycle we're in.

The solution if anything is more restrictions on the brand new groups, it's not to lighten the restrictions because you have to lighten them across the board. And you have to take planned features into account. Factions allow day one mutual PvP, so if you just want to fight it's there. The law system counters things like swarms strip mining. Though if someone can field enough people across enough time there is literally nothing you could do to stop them anyways unless there are hard mechanic in place to do so. Don't forget Law options are supposed to be tied to your alignment and your settlement. With the influence diminishing returns the ability to claim large swaths and exact your laws over them will probably be pretty difficult and any feuds could be prohibitively expensive for large companies. Which would then mean settlement war is your best option but that's driven by DI which is limited by other factors and makes your entire settlement vulnerable to counter attacks.

[hugs]

I may have a tendency to zero in on, and counter, what I consider the weak parts of a person's post.

I get the design philosophy over the long term and can't argue against it both because it would be futile and because I largely agree with it.

It's just that first two months of cooling their heels (or having to join a settlement sooner than any other specialization) that seems unfair (as well as poor design when the best alternative to cooling their heels is spending an easier currency that leads to villainy).

But today I spoke with a group that is showing up this month that I would say largely fits the non-villainous PvPers I described (at least as their ideal). When I described the concepts in this thread what they told me is something to the effect of:

We have to start off grinding PvE anywhere we go. The gaming industry is going to continue to copycat the games that made companies rich. Grinding PvE to us is like gridlock to a commuter. It's stupid, and wastes our time, but sooner or later we always get where we're going.

So, at least there's one group that isn't going to sweat it and *might* not go the villainy route. Maybe they're all that reasonable.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Duffy Swiftshadow
I don't think it's really a problem, the type of player that just wants to do one thing and one thing only is an asset, but they shouldn't be entire groups. They should be part of a group, that seems to all be by design. What's the point of feuding a company that doesn't actually have anything? Nothing, it's just an excuse to fight. If I want to just fight people there are much better games out there for that specific purpose (none of them are MMOs). Last night there was a minor blow up after the lecture where apparently a new player was somewhat ranting how much this game sucks because they can't just do whatever they want and kill random people without getting punished. That's the type of person the game doesn't want to be the norm. What it wants to be the norm is people planning and fighting over things that actually matter on a bigger scale, and the only way to really do that is to build it up first.

The more I think about it the more I think they should really build in some more mechanics that encourage you to have something to lose. Maybe something like having holdings boosts influence accumulation, then you have a reason for even 'entirely' PvP companies to protect something. Micro specialization is a pitfall that should be avoided when it comes to organizing companies and what not, on a personal level it's fine.
Tuoweit
Duffy Swiftshadow
The more I think about it the more I think they should really build in some more mechanics that encourage you to have something to lose. Maybe something like having holdings boosts influence accumulation, then you have a reason for even 'entirely' PvP companies to protect something. Micro specialization is a pitfall that should be avoided when it comes to organizing companies and what not, on a personal level it's fine.

What if various holdings you could place around settlements helped you build stuff *in* your settlement, and what you built in your settlement controlled the kinds and levels of training and crafting you had access to?
Yrme
Duffy Swiftshadow
What's the point of feuding a company that doesn't actually have anything? Nothing, it's just an excuse to fight.

I think that's generally right. Spending Influence to feud a company that has nothing will just result in that company logging off and laughing at your lost Influence. The one exception - a company with no holding can feud another company to take a holding. When that happens, a third company *could* counter-feud the attacking company, even though the attacker had no holding, because there is a holding at stake.

Duffy Swiftshadow
Maybe something like having holdings boosts influence accumulation, then you have a reason for even 'entirely' PvP companies to protect something.

That seems like a good idea. Holdings could also just give a company some amount of Influence over time. It wouldn't have to be a huge amount; a basic +0 holding requires 100i to place and a return of 2i or 5i a day for every 100i invested might quickly add up and replace losses from feuds.
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.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Tuoweit
Duffy Swiftshadow
The more I think about it the more I think they should really build in some more mechanics that encourage you to have something to lose. Maybe something like having holdings boosts influence accumulation, then you have a reason for even 'entirely' PvP companies to protect something. Micro specialization is a pitfall that should be avoided when it comes to organizing companies and what not, on a personal level it's fine.

What if various holdings you could place around settlements helped you build stuff *in* your settlement, and what you built in your settlement controlled the kinds and levels of training and crafting you had access to?

Well technically they already do smile they are the source of all the materials you need for upkeep and construction of your settlement. But honestly I think the smart way to do it right now is to break your characters into PvP companies and PvE/Holding companies cause it's more efficient and games the system. The PvP company save up influence for the sole purpose of attacking people and defending their buddy companies if they get attacked while the holding company dedicate all it's influence to holdings and upgrades. Let's you game the influence curves depending on the number of people you have. But if there are buildings a PvP company would want to build and defend to make them competitive, suddenly merging the two companies into one is the more effective strategy (at lower numbers), or at the very least your PvP company will have something that makes feuding them not a waste of influence.

Wars are a different level of conflict above this that operates on DI instead of influence, that would be the alternative to messing with feuding multiple related targets but still has the problem of drawing in allies and what not, tho to a much lesser degree than companies.
Lee Hammock
This thread is very active and I have not read it all, but wanted to let people know we have some changes in the hopper for EE9:
*Increase the amount of Influence regained at the end of a feud to 90%
*Increase the rate of gain for characters with higher level achievements (a character with level 10 in an achievement should see 3 times as much Influence, with lower achievement levels seeing less reward to level 1 seeing no difference).

So more Influence should be coming into the game and less should be coming out.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Thanks for the heads up Lee! That certainly helps with some of the debate. Hopefully that will see an uptick in feuding once that other Feud bug is fixed (I hope by EE9 if not sooner).

I do think there might still be something worth discussing concerning the idea of 'PvP' only companies being a thing and farming up influence to feud without needing or having any infrastructure to directly support them and be a target for counter-attacks. But that's tangential to the influence rate discussion.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post