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.

Whither PFO?

Memory-High Priest of Desna
Duffy Swiftshadow
Doc brings up a good point I always wrestle with internally when discussing these things.

I think the idea many would like to see is that your primary muster time should also be your primary defense time. While rearranging schedules is acceptable once in awhile (for Nihimon's former part's audience), doing it regularly is not, and those are the players that I assume the game would be trying to make PvP and the repercussions of it more palatable to compared to those coming from games where the current situation is more like the norm.

The scenario this implies is that if you want to fight someone off hours it should be a planned weekend event or require significant rescheduling. It's a bit interesting to note that it's often easier to push your hours back, but not earlier. I can never manage a weekday afternoon time before 5pm local, it just won't happen due to work, but I can push evenings out to 3 or 4am local once in awhile.

Some of this could be solved by simply having a larger international audience and better player distribution across play-times, but your never going to get it perfect. You could also solve it by making it harder to move around your PvP window so opponents can plan better, there are several things they can pursue.

But the important question is the core of this thread, what are they planning to do? The answer is going to drive whether or not a decent portion of those playing will want to stick around through the growing pains or not, at least for a good portion of those I have talked too.

i didn't want to quote your whole post but i forgot which part i wanted to highlight.

the concept of PVP windows being what it is, i've always been of the opinion that we need alternate PVP opportunities that can be waged against an opponent. if their window is at a time you can't muster, then you should have other targets and other opportunities to make an impact. It might not revolve around holding warfare, but alternate systems of meaningful PVP engagement that are not tied to the PVP window would go a long way to increasing the fluidity of PVP in PFO.

I've never read or heard anything from GW about potential alternate systems, so i don't even know if i'm shouting in the right direction. That's another reason i'm anxious to hear what they have to say about Nihimon's question.
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.
Dreaden
The problem with attackers having the same PvP window as defenders is it becomes a trading game. Its impossible for us attack and defend at the same time, so we would capture yours while you capture ours. It would dissolve into holding swapping and eventually no one would have any interest at all. As to fued cooldowns I get your frustration with the fight at your doorstep every night, but you have to understand our perspective as well. You have the largest player base in the game, there is no way we can beat you when all your people are there. Our only advantage is persistence. If your people didn't get war weary, we would be severely outnumbered every fight with zero chance of victory.
Memory-High Priest of Desna
Dreaden
The problem with attackers having the same PvP window as defenders is it becomes a trading game.

yea, i've never been a proponent of that idea either. it doesn't help anything.
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.
Smitty
Why not have something like if a holding or outpost is overrun. The overrunning settlement PvP window opens for an additional window at the top of the next hour( or for additional window at the close of the PvP window, so they dont overlap times).

Just a thought and has issues , But I do think something like this helps address the no risk involved in attacking all the time. The travel time of 20 minutes to get back would have to be considered, do attackers press for more or go back and defend, did the defense split their forces or do they have an attack force stationed nearby to retaliate against the attackers outpost?

Defenders should be able to retaliate in some way if they want to , not wait till the attackers tell them it is okay to do so..
Gaskon
A suggestion that might move PVP towards the sort of "limited warfare" I'd like to see:

Limit the productive, controllable hexes to #of settlements X 8. So if there are 30 active settlements, then 240 hexes are suitable for placing holdings, the rest are wilderness for gathering and PvE.

Make controlling the 6 hexes around your settlement easy. Give defenders a lot of advantages. Let a 6-hex settlement provide 95% of the possible training and support options to its members.

Give settlements that control 7-10 hexes some minor cosmetic benefits or bragging-rights. Flags, leaderboards, special armor colors, but nothing that gives them a power boost.

Make controlling 11+ hexes give no advantages over controlling 10, give no incentives for taking more than 10 hexes, and make it really hard to defend anything more than 10.

A settlement that wants to stay out of the way can hold 6, not be in anyones way, and survive happily.

A settlement that wants to do occasional PvP can try to take a 7th or 8th, but not lose much if they get knocked back to 6.

A settlement that thinks its a badass can take 10-12, will have a real hard time holding onto the 11th and 12th, and gets some visible bragging rights.

Two settlements that get in a war, there is incentive for the losing side to surrender once they are reduced to 6, and there is no incentive for the winning side to take those last 6 from them.

A settlement that acts like a real jerk and pisses off the entire server might lose all 6 hexes and become useless, but it would take the concerted effort of many attackers to force the issue that far, and would leave the aggressors extremely vulnerable to any third parties.
Duffy Swiftshadow
@Memory

I do think if there were more options for PvP besides the Feud/Holding 'hammer' looking for nails it would lessen some of the problems all around. Might still need to do something for the Holding/Settlement warfare but the severity could possibly be lessened by having some other options available.

@Dreaden

Agreed, that would be far worse and lead to stagnation similar to the state of WoT, probably much faster than the current system.
Memory-High Priest of Desna
Gaskon
Give settlements that control 7-10 hexes some minor cosmetic benefits or bragging-rights. Flags, leaderboards, special armor colors, but nothing that gives them a power boost.

this seems to eschew the entire point of the game. Settlements take exceptionally large amounts of resources and time to develop and maintain. If the system were fundamentally changed to render them inert in terms of player consequences, there is no reason for them to be player-controlled in the first place. I feel confident in making the statement that that is not, nor was it ever intended to be, the nature of this game.

Gaskon
Make controlling 11+ hexes give no advantages over controlling 10, give no incentives for taking more than 10 hexes, and make it really hard to defend anything more than 10.

So, you're suggesting that a sandbox game about territorial conflict and control be devoid of any incentive to have conflicts over territorial control. Bold, but i don't think that's going to float at all.

Gaskon
Two settlements that get in a war, there is incentive for the losing side to surrender once they are reduced to 6, and there is no incentive for the winning side to take those last 6 from them.
I don't want to get into a whole thing, or come off as insulting, so i'll simply say that this entire post flies in the face of everything the game was built on. It is intended for settlements to be something you can lose. I would recommend that you avoid getting invested in settlement management if losing one is a dealbreaker for you.
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.
Edam
The other thing that would change the war of attrition dynamic is after a reasonable period like a company being feuded for 5 days straight the PvP windows started to shorten.
Doc
I'm skeptical that any of the proposed solutions are going to change a scenario as presented if one side in a conflict is by their very nature more tenacious and persistent than the other, at an institutional level - unless the game just outright denies them the ability to play the game. That's probably what would need to happen in order to let casual players flourish in PFO, but I'm going to hang on till Goblin Works tells me I don't belong here till I concede and move on.
Gaskon
I want a game where settlements A, B, C, D, E can all exist, can have complicated rivalries and can compete over objectives.
I want A and B to have a week-long fight over a coal mine that results in A being able to manufacture armor more cheaply.
I want C and D to engage in long-term economic warfare by moving goods across the map to generate value.
I want E to make raids on D's caravans that cost them 10-20% of their profits.
I want B and D to have a three month-long war that finally ends when D surrenders, and gives B a weekly tribute of 100 units of gold.
That's what was described in the kickstarter.

What I don't want is the current situation:
A attacks 1 tower in a single hour-long battle, therefore B flips out and starts killing all their gatherers.

Without limits on warfare, there is no opportunity for conflict resolution, there is simply eternal conflict.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post