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.

A new mechanic for PvP windows

Brighthaven Leader
Hello all,
This idea has been thrown around a lot in TEO, and I wanted to post it here for feedback from the server. The idea surround how the PvP windows will look during EE10, and the concept focuses on your sphere of influence (not be confused with influence for companies). As a settlement your sphere of influence is greater the closer you are to your settlement, while the further you get away from your settlement you run the risk of over extending yourself, so taking that concept and applying it to the PvP window this is the idea:

Each ring of holdings, out from the settlement, share the exact PvP window, which increases the further out you get from your settlement. Lets take 30 minutes for this example, per hex out from the settlement.

Example: The ring of hexes one hex out would have a PvP window of half an hour, the second ring of hexes two hexes out would have an hour PvP window, and the third ring of hexes three hexes out would have an hour and a half PvP window.

This would continue on half an hour at a time the further you get away from the settlement. GW could change the times to what ever they felt would be right, and even change them based on server population. The settlements themselves could change the PvP window, per hex ring for some kind of buff/debuff scenario as well.

This means, it is easier to defend whats closer to home, but much harder to defend whats further afield from your settlement. Unless you use this mechanic strategically, which it would open an entire set of different strategies that we don't have with the current system of the more you hold the longer the time.

What do you all think?
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!
Duffy Swiftshadow
Smaller settlements aren't gonna waste holdings on bad hex locations just to get the surrounding rings feature (unless the mechanics force us, which I would frown upon). I think the inherent difficulty in defending remote locations is enough of a penalty compared to increasing the PvP windows. Tho the specific comparable numbers do play a factor in this argument, if your saying the inner rings would always be lower than say what our max looks like right now, then it might be okay, but if you are doubling the window compared to right now as you get farther out, it becomes a problem.
Bringslite
Duffy Swiftshadow
Smaller settlements aren't gonna waste holdings on bad hex locations just to get the surrounding rings feature (unless the mechanics force us, which I would frown upon). I think the inherent difficulty in defending remote locations is enough of a penalty compared to increasing the PvP windows. Tho the specific comparable numbers do play a factor in this argument, if your saying the inner rings would always be lower than say what our max looks like right now, then it might be okay, but if you are doubling the window compared to right now as you get farther out, it becomes a problem.

That. ^^^
I am very much behind ideas that make the PVP strategy more interesting and I am not averse to looking at this particular idea again when the population is larger. If we are now operating from the standpoint of encouraging the salvageable small settlements to hang on for pop increase, I feel like we should wait a bit on that kind of move.

Not a bad idea by any means. Just not the right time for it.

For now, what I could get behind is a PVP window based purely on a settlement's "character totals". Completely unrealistic as that would be, it would help the smallest of us to get a chance at establishing a decent starting position. It would also encourage all of us to cut the "fluff" from our rosters.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Brighthaven Leader
Ok let me clarify, the inner ring would always stay 30 mins, no increase, the 2nd ring always 1 hour no increase, and so on. They don't increase the over all window.
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!
Brighthaven Leader
So, as time lapses you have a smaller range of territory to defend.
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!
Decius
I'd like to see PvP vulnerability tied to settlement training support rather than some other proxy for size/power.

If the vulnerability is much more than two hours daily, it is excessively difficult to get people to standby in case of an attack.
Duffy Swiftshadow
I'll double check when I get in game but under this model I think we would have holdings at double our current window size.

@Decius

I agree, getting close to 4 hours is pushing the upper limit of most people's daily game time outside of some weekends. They should try their best to balance some of this around realistic playing expectations. At least until larger populations start to appear and can take shifts.
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
I would like to see a return to the hexes being open PVP zones during the window. Also the Monster Home Hexes, and Meteor Strike hexes should also be open PVP zones, and add the incentive of going there with higher tier resources and mobs that drop more coin.

Zone based PVP access is a proven winner, rewarding the risk takers and allowing players to take on the level of risk they are comfortable with.
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
Duffy Swiftshadow
I think at this point I'm alright with those non-claimable hexes being open PvP zones, if they want us to fight over them it needs to be convenient to do so. I don't think any of the stated mechanics to date would work well for challenging the home or meteor hexes.

As for capturing/destroying buildings, keep it to declared conflicts. Raiding said holdings should perhaps not required a feud though.
Decius
Why not go all the way and make any hex with an active escalation open PvP?

Not that I'm in favor of that, but suspending the rules only in some hexes reeks of arena combat.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post