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.

Adding Risk/Cost to Feuds

Nihimon
It's great that Feuds work both ways, making the Attacker's holdings vulnerable as well. But that doesn't mean much if the attacking Company doesn't have any Holdings.

Would it make sense to modify the amount of Influence returned at the end of a Feud based on how many Holdings the Attacking Company has? If they capture a Holding during the Feud, I'd be happy for them to receive a 100% refund. If they didn't risk any Holdings of their own, and didn't even overrun an Outpost, I kind of think they shouldn't get very much Influence back.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Rynnik
Nihimon
It's great that Feuds work both ways, making the Attacker's holdings vulnerable as well. But that doesn't mean much if the attacking Company doesn't have any Holdings.

Would it make sense to modify the amount of Influence returned at the end of a Feud based on how many Holdings the Attacking Company has? If they capture a Holding during the Feud, I'd be happy for them to receive a 100% refund. If they didn't risk any Holdings of their own, and didn't even overrun an Outpost, I kind of think they shouldn't get very much Influence back.
I don't think that is a good idea.

You guys counterfeuded one of our asset holding companies immediately (and failed to take anything with it) and that is the sort of organizational interplay that promotes choice and makes sense to me and seems like interesting sandbox play.

Increasing influence cost in any way and therefore disincentivizing PvP doesn't seem like a good plan right now. We need that gear churn stimulating the economy and it is going to be tough enough to motivate people to get fighting as it is until the rep bugs get patched out. We need more people duking it out in healthy conflicts over outposts and holdings, not less.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Nihimon
Rynnik
You guys counterfeuded one of our asset holding companies immediately (and failed to take anything with it)…

That reminds me. You probably shouldn't be able to change your PvP Window while there's an active Feud.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Bringslite
Nihimon
It's great that Feuds work both ways, making the Attacker's holdings vulnerable as well. But that doesn't mean much if the attacking Company doesn't have any Holdings.

Would it make sense to modify the amount of Influence returned at the end of a Feud based on how many Holdings the Attacking Company has? If they capture a Holding during the Feud, I'd be happy for them to receive a 100% refund. If they didn't risk any Holdings of their own, and didn't even overrun an Outpost, I kind of think they shouldn't get very much Influence back.

There was a post somewhere by someguy, asking that GW make 2 types of feuds. One just for 2+ days of personal fighting. One that requires the initiator to take at least one outpost (in 2+ days) from the target company or lose all of the Influence that is in escrow.

Something about there being some actual risk in declaring the second type of feud. At a final cost of 10 Influence, there might as well be no cost at all.

GW, why do you keep trying to fix things with sledgehammers? You are experienced game developers. You know that it isn't necessary to turn a dial from 10 to 1 or from 1 to 10. There are settings in between.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
Pretty sure all my comments encapsulate the game and it's current state. I personally think it's an incredibly imbalanced mess on the Company/Settlement PvP scale for the most part and that it needs lots of work to get away from that. Hence why I participate in these discussions and a lot of the forum talk in general, but since others also get to say what they want I am obliged to participate in their conversations and offer my opinion when and where I deem necessary.
Brighthaven Leader
I am going to add this:

I believe that just 10% loss for a feud doesn't seem right. You can just feud willy nilly, and on top of it there are no lose conditions for a feud. Its feud and lose 10%, or feud and take something and get all of your influence back.

Now, on the defending side of a feud there is no win condition on a defense. If I successfully defend thats it, I get to keep what I already held. No negative consequences are on the aggressor, other than the 10% loss of influence.

By the way, if you have a small dedicated group you can gain that influence back in 1 afternoon.

I don't think we should require people to own territory to start a feud, but I don't think the 10% loss is appropriate or balanced.

One of the things I saw, that would be interesting is if you launched a feud and if you aren't able to overrun anything during your feud you lose 20-30% of your influence OR perhaps your characters take a small penalty (attached to the character not the company) due to moral of the characters being low. Either way, there needs to be something else there within the feuding mechanics to even this situation out.
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!
Memory-High Priest of Desna
+1 on creating tangible risk for aggressors,

+1 on not changing pvp windows while overrun is in progress

+1 on incentivizing win conditions. The winners of every conflict should get something, aggressor or defender.
Adventure Time with the High Priest of Desna, begins Tuesday 08/18 at 6:00pm EST (10:00 server time) at the Thornkeep Auction house. All new players welcome!

Official titles and Nicknames:
Spherewalker of Indor-Mardil, High Priest of Desna, Dreaden-appointed Forum Troll Extraordinaire, The Southern Speedster, Slinger of Stars, Newbie-Bear, Gutter of Golgothans, King of Kiters, Johnny Ustalavian-Seed, and Peaches.
Ryan Dancey
I can answer most of these questions in the ontext of a comeback mechanic.

We want you to be able to recover from a major setback. We assume a worst case of being dispossed from a Settlement, but there is a continuum of setbacks from losing a Holding to losing all Holdings before an outright Settlement loss that we also are very wary of. Major setback is potentially a mass-quit event. We are intentionally erring on the side of caution with the variables in the current design.

The bar is low for Companies to feud so that a setback Company can recover and go back on the offensive quickly. The value of taking a Holding is not offset for a failure to take a Holding other than a small and quickly recoverable "nusiance" Influence penalty so that setback Companies don't death spiral.

The special case of a Settlement that organizes without Holdings is something that needs to be addressed economically.

Changing PvP windows durng a feud is not the intent of the design and there are several feature and bug reports already on file for this and related issues for the team to rview and act on in the next several releases.
Edam
Ryan Dancey
Major setback is potentially a mass-quit event. We are intentionally erring on the side of caution with the variables in the current design.

Do also consider the possibility that 24/7 feuding at only 5 IP per day can be maintained indefinitely and this may also cause burnout and quitting.

People do want PvP and currently there is very little.

However by the same token, not everyone wants it everyday all day.
Rynnik
Ryan Dancey
Changing PvP windows durng a feud is not the intent of the design and there are several feature and bug reports already on file for this and related issues for the team to rview and act on in the next several releases.
Please reconsider this.

PvP windows are a mechanism weighted to defender advantage and I believe the design principles of allowing those that hold the assets pick the time in a 23 hour window to defend them are good ones.

Allowing the aggressor to effectively 'lock' that PvP window for up to seven days runs against that solid design in my opinion. It is easy to see why feuding in front of a holiday or even just a weekend would become the best time, anything likely to be the day before a change would occur. I believe the seven day max window practically ensures that for any gaming organization except one that is only represented by a single active playtime at least somewhere along the way the time will be inconvenient for the defender and that flies in the face of the first principle of defender advantage.

A smart group may well cycle there Calls to Arm's and have their Euro primetime defend, West Coast players the next night, etc. etc. to share the weight of meaningful conflict. Isn't this a good idea over all? Allowing that flexibility seems to be quite reasonable with minimal (justifiable) disadvantage to the attacker.

Please rethink this before making a change regarding it, as I think it makes sense for groups to be able to select their window every day they need to defend as per the current implementation.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post