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?

Elsworth Sugarfoot
They're aren't on you. You could put down holdings and never feud us.

If you want to have influence around to feud and attack us they are on you. So if you want to attack, those are the costs. It's a cost for attackers only.
Beinion
Elsworth Sugarfoot
All right I'll break it down:

Our two feuding companies have just over 1600 influence.
People who know more about these things than me tell me that to put holdings and outposts down that would be enough to generate about 250 bulk resources a day.

So that's our cost to feud you.

250 bulk resources a day.

That's the meaningful choice we've made. We give that up and feud you instead.
That is not a cost to attack us that is a cost to attack us and force us to not be able to retaliate on that company
Phyllain
If you guys don't want to pvp you should try to see what it would take in game to make the pvp stop. Not ask the devs to save you. When we where losing the WoT for weeks on end did you see us crying here asking the devs to save us? Yes we complained that we where losing since we where outnumbered but never once did I ask the devs to save us.
MidknightDiamond
Beinion
We want less pvp not more ! s
So… negotiate a ceasefire? Honestly I have to agree with Elsworth, there should be PVP opportunities 24/7. The windows for outpost/holding captures are a bit annoying but they do serve to 'sort of' show an organized time muster between such events so I can see that as necessary. Settlement warfare and siege (when it comes in) should take more than a few days as well and hopefully will be an interesting multi-layered thing.

But seriously, diplomacy, it CAN work!
Aurora Silverstar, Pathfinder University Quartermaster & Explorer
Kiernan Silverstar, Aurora's lazy & good-for-nothing younger brother who just likes to blow things up.

PM MidknightDiamond on Paizo Forum
Beinion


Plz explain what your risk is to attack us every night
The influence, if the attack fails, production loss. The time, attack fails, opportunities with that time lost. The gear, attack fails, financial loss.

Out of all of those the only one that we do not in cure is the influence cost and if we wish to retaliate we take that cost to
Midnight
Lucius
So your telling me your fielding the majority of your players over what looks like almost two weeks in your 'enemies' timezone? But your PvP window is for your EU folks to participate in defensive PvP that isn't happening 5/7 days of the week?

Looks pretty clear to me, especially with all that bellyaching a few pages back about them doing something to ya during the tower fighting. I came in after all that but it sounds like the rules pvp rules were different then.

Any who I might not be that smart, but I sure as sh*t ain't that dumb to believe anything yer saying when the ramifications in game look pretty dam clear.

You don't like us. That's clear to anyone reading.

But your bias is willfully blinding you to the fact that as long as they are losing in their own timezone, even if we had picked our PvP window to accommodate them, the only difference would be WHERE they lost tons of gear.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Elsworth Sugarfoot
We'd need that much influence free regardless if the company had holdings or not. The amount it costs to feud is not connected to having holdings or not. That's how much influence we need to keep attacks going. The choice to not have holdings in those companies is just a smart move.

Just like the choice you all made to have your holdings spread across 6+ companies. That way we have to feud 6 companies if we want to go on the attack.
Lucius
Ya that seems meaningful when ya throw numbers around, don't mean its a real cost if you don't need the resources. Seems like its not really a choice for ya and you dont have to make a hard decision about it so it's not meaningful in the least.

For it to be meaningful or a sacrifice it needs to actually be a burden ya have to put something ya want or need on the line. Pretty sure that ain't happening. Context is important, just cause you made a choice doesn't make it important.

As to the other bit of commentary just cause a system allows something don't mean its balanced or good for that matter especially if it hides an imbalance in the greater context of practical application up to GW where they want to aim for that practical balance or not. Basketball is pretty balanced with rules but someone 3ft tall gonna have an awfully hard time against an almost 7 footer. Games are supposed to lower that bar to something a bit more reasonable and be an embracing medium, not a dividing one.
Beinion
MidknightDiamond
Beinion
We want less pvp not more ! s
So… negotiate a ceasefire? Honestly I have to agree with Elsworth, there should be PVP opportunities 24/7. The windows for outpost/holding captures are a bit annoying but they do serve to 'sort of' show an organized time muster between such events so I can see that as necessary. Settlement warfare and siege (when it comes in) should take more than a few days as well and hopefully will be an interesting multi-layered thing.

But seriously, diplomacy, it CAN work!
Don't want a ceasefire I like the pvp I just think they should have a cost that is not on us or we gain something when we push them back for a week straight so we are not forced to bend knee to an extortionist company or burn out doing what they want to do every night I don't agree with the only weekend pvp but it would get me to log back in as it is now I am out till something changes because the way it is does not work for me and if that is the way it is suppose to the I will just find a different game as many ppl have said GW needs to say what kind of game they want this to be
Elsworth Sugarfoot
Phyllain
If you guys don't want to pvp you should try to see what it would take in game to make the pvp stop. Not ask the devs to save you. When we where losing the WoT for weeks on end did you see us crying here asking the devs to save us? Yes we complained that we where losing since we where outnumbered but never once did I ask the devs to save us.

Actually, I believe we were asking questions like, "What are you going to do if one group becomes so big that no one has any realistic chance of defeating them? Have you heard of 'uncle bob'?"

Those concerns still remain for me, since if Phaeros quits EoX will probably 'uncle bob' the game in short order. Which is something we said when we brought up those concerns.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post