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.

Make PvP Meaningful

Drogon
Rynnik
Drogon
Rynnik
Drogon
Eox has won their fair share of battles and so has the EBA. Just depends on the day…. GF all

Some of these points that Nihimon are making are valid. The PVP system would be more fun if there were some clear win mechanics. More people would participate which means more PVP for everyone on any given day. People that didn't want to PVP daily could rotate in and out because there would be more people looking forward to play. As of now the server is losing participants because the mechanics are wonky.

I don't want ANYONE on either side to quit the game…. We all need each other to help make this game successful..
Very much agreed Drogon that people quitting over parts of the game is bad.

Gotta ask what specifically in transfer of a holding ownership doesn't feel like a tangible win condition to you as a player?
I think there should be others but I do actually think this is a tangible win condition.
However, for arguments sake, let's say the game mechanics are/were indeed bugged enough to allow the attacker an easy win or even the defender a distinct advantage. Wouldn't you agree the "win" should have an asterix beside it? My point is, if I "win", I want to do it in a way that there can be no doubt that it was a win and right now the game mechanics need to be adjusted some in order for that to happen. There is too much grey area right now for either side to be able to declare a definitive win. But I just try to keep in mind we are still in EE and it is a work in progress….which means it is all still fun and games for me personally….
You aren't asking for different mechanics then. I think you are just supporting bug fixes?

Am I correct in saying that?

If I understand you correctly we are exactly on the same page. Bugs cheapen everything and add negative spin on all kinds of things that would otherwise be good to go. The mechanics once polished seem well placed to provide meaning. Please fix the bugs! (And for the record I think they are doing exactly that already and making good progress at it)
Sorry for the delayed response…

Yes bugs are a big problem and I hope they get fixed ASAP. We absolutely are on the same page here.

I do however think that a few minor tweaks to the mechanics might help find balance between both sides of this conflict and what they are hoping to get from this game. I think my main requests would be revising the influence costs of feuding…for the measly cost of 10 influence at most per feud , both sides could contnually feud others every day without any concern. Feuds should cost more in my opinion.

This is just thinking out loud and I haven't really gone through all the nuances yet….But IMO there needs to be some sort of mechanic that says if the defender successfully defends (no outpost or holdings taken from them) then current feud is canceled and their settlement or company cannot be feuded by anyone for a 2-3 day cooldown. The defeated attacking company should also be unable to feud any other company for the same cooldown period. So a defender can actually win a short reprieve. However if the attacker is successful (winning a single outpost or holding) then they earn something like capture points that are accumulated and can be spent on something useful for PVP. Maybe some other perks for winning besides the actual capturing and burning of the outposts and holdings.

As to Nihimons OP, I think there could be some validity to having some sort of counter strike window that is an extra window that the attackers could be vunerable either during the same window as defender or directly after.. Of course for this to be viable an attacker should be required to have at least one holding prior to declaring the feud so there is actually something besides gear and pride at risk smile

Could be worth looking at but I am not the developers and I will just play the game they give us until we find a balance that keeps players playing or I'm the only one left ….
HpoD - "I have, however, sat and watched as others took things more personally (on both sides) and became zealots, charging forward on a shining white horse into a pile of shit. Forum Warriors at their peak, striding the battlefield knee deep in the bloody, broken arguments of their adversaries before the burning village of their credibility….Chill guys. "
Rynnik
Drogon
Rynnik
Drogon
Rynnik
Drogon
Eox has won their fair share of battles and so has the EBA. Just depends on the day…. GF all

Some of these points that Nihimon are making are valid. The PVP system would be more fun if there were some clear win mechanics. More people would participate which means more PVP for everyone on any given day. People that didn't want to PVP daily could rotate in and out because there would be more people looking forward to play. As of now the server is losing participants because the mechanics are wonky.

I don't want ANYONE on either side to quit the game…. We all need each other to help make this game successful..
Very much agreed Drogon that people quitting over parts of the game is bad.

Gotta ask what specifically in transfer of a holding ownership doesn't feel like a tangible win condition to you as a player?
I think there should be others but I do actually think this is a tangible win condition.
However, for arguments sake, let's say the game mechanics are/were indeed bugged enough to allow the attacker an easy win or even the defender a distinct advantage. Wouldn't you agree the "win" should have an asterix beside it? My point is, if I "win", I want to do it in a way that there can be no doubt that it was a win and right now the game mechanics need to be adjusted some in order for that to happen. There is too much grey area right now for either side to be able to declare a definitive win. But I just try to keep in mind we are still in EE and it is a work in progress….which means it is all still fun and games for me personally….
You aren't asking for different mechanics then. I think you are just supporting bug fixes?

Am I correct in saying that?

If I understand you correctly we are exactly on the same page. Bugs cheapen everything and add negative spin on all kinds of things that would otherwise be good to go. The mechanics once polished seem well placed to provide meaning. Please fix the bugs! (And for the record I think they are doing exactly that already and making good progress at it)
Sorry for the delayed response…

Yes bugs are a big problem and I hope they get fixed ASAP. We absolutely are on the same page here.

I do however think that a few minor tweaks to the mechanics might help find balance between both sides of this conflict and what they are hoping to get from this game. I think my main requests would be revising the influence costs of feuding…for the measly cost of 10 influence at most per feud , both sides could contnually feud others every day without any concern. Feuds should cost more in my opinion.

This is just thinking out loud and I haven't really gone through all the nuances yet….But IMO there needs to be some sort of mechanic that says if the defender successfully defends (no outpost or holdings taken from them) then current feud is canceled and their settlement or company cannot be feuded by anyone for a 2-3 day cooldown. The defeated attacking company should also be unable to feud any other company for the same cooldown period. So a defender can actually win a short reprieve. However if the attacker is successful (winning a single outpost or holding) then they earn something like capture points that are accumulated and can be spent on something useful for PVP. Maybe some other perks for winning besides the actual capturing and burning of the outposts and holdings.

As to Nihimons OP, I think there could be some validity to having some sort of counter strike window that is an extra window that the attackers could be vunerable either during the same window as defender or directly after.. Of course for this to be viable an attacker should be required to have at least one holding prior to declaring the feud so there is actually something besides gear and pride at risk smile

Could be worth looking at but I am not the developers and I will just play the game they give us until we find a balance that keeps players playing or I'm the only one left ….
That stuff is mostly too gameable.

For example an invul period would mean a company drops fake feuds any time before they want to be safe and then enjoy a risk free cool down.

Much better to stick with the more open but fairer current mechanics then go down a route like that. Just fix all the bugs on what we have now.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Drogon
You could be right
HpoD - "I have, however, sat and watched as others took things more personally (on both sides) and became zealots, charging forward on a shining white horse into a pile of shit. Forum Warriors at their peak, striding the battlefield knee deep in the bloody, broken arguments of their adversaries before the burning village of their credibility….Chill guys. "
Smitty
Any universal cool down idea is horrible, as people will just feud alliance settlements in order to lock themselves out of PvP. If you try to lock one settlement from doing it, you just get people attacking you with 2 settlements ( or going through the proper company moving procedures..) some folks will be more than willing to run 2 combat characters to do so. So unless you introduce a mechanic that allows universal cool downs then you are going to be attacked.

I still maintain this fight is of our making and not a design issue. I am not privy to our sides diplomacy talks , but since many will say it has been tried, Can I ask you what the terms were when you asked to have a 3 day break after a feud ended?
////
Just to talk over your example a little bit, and show you how one sided it is..
You want the feud declared at least one hour before it can be used.
You want the map to show you where you are being attacked.
You want guards to help repel attackers.
You said if a feud is declared for 3 days, and is successfully defended for one day.
You want the feud to immediately end. ( no more reputation free targets for the original feud duration)
You also want a global cool down window of 2-3 days. ( so you cant be attacked, which cant be in the game or it would be abused..)
And finally you also want the influence cost to be much greater ( like 100 ? instead of 12?).- ( how will new settlements ever get to use this system?)

To sum it up, you want to be able to show up in force for an hour( with an hour notice, and a map to tell you where to go) .
You want to defend an hour ( at much greater cost than 12 influence for the attacker), and additionally you want the next 72 hours ( min) to be free of any feud.
.
You are essentially saying 1 hour of forming a blob at your chosen time window and defending your area should equal no less than 72 hours of being feud free.
How does that even sound remotely like a system that is balanced?
Smitty
The only point I am really in favor of form the OP ..
The chance at striking back at your enemy following a successful feud by an attacker. I like the idea of an additional PvP window Opening for the attacking force if a outpost or holding is taken during the defenders window.

1 .It will Lead to more PvP ( which sounds backwards to fight too much PvP with more, but being on offense vs defense does feel different)
2. It will allow for strategy to play a part in the fight
a. did they let us win that so they can attack us?
b. should we not go after that last outpost because we now have a 20 min run to defend our stuff?
Smitty
Finally brought this one up in that 75 page massive thread as well..
Meaningless PvP, is a term we throw around, Asked Bringslite in the other thread what if anything would cause him to attack another settlement. Basically his response was nothing except direct attack against his settlement would cause him to attack anything else on the map.

Which leads me to believe that many groups see PvP as a detractor and something to avoid not something to actively seek out.

My idea in that thread was to award the people that PvP with valuable things you normally only get doing PvE.
I wanted to add T3 expendables, and recipes to holding vaults for people that take them over( or reclaim them) . I think it takes 2 days to get to the point of destroying a holding after it is overrun. I want to add a couple items to the holding Vault based on the + value of the holding at that time.
If the Holding is reclaimed with in the 2 day window the holding still lost the + but the stuff in the vault will go to the people that reclaimed it.
The value of a holding is decreased by +1 when it is overrun so that should be a deterrent to just destroying your own stuff for a random T3 recipe, or maneuver etc ..but just in case don’t do anything like this until logging and analytics are in the game so devs can track it and put a stop to shady practices if needed.

If just defending was not so game able I would suggest something like this for just defending off a feud, but people would just feud and never show up.. Requiring the holding to change hands has a cost in the resources used to produce the holding at the very least. Doesn’t help with just defending a holding but does give you a reason to try to get it back after one was over run.
Midnight
We've seen EBA attack their own TOWERS. Maybe they were transferring it. Maybe they were making it so we couldn't attack it that night while we were on a roll.

Rewards falling from outpost or holding captures that the GAME delivers (as compared to being stored there) is way too easy to exploit.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of PvP party rewards. We just have to think of something harder to exploit.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Elmin Sterro
Midnight
We've seen EBA attack their own TOWERS. Maybe they were transferring it. Maybe they were making it so we couldn't attack it that night while we were on a roll.

Rewards falling from outposts or holdings that the GAME delivers (as compared to being stored there) is way too easy to exploit.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of PvP party rewards. We just have to think of something harder to exploit.

We have had a few friendly takeovers. It was necessary because there is no non-hostile means of ownership transfer.
Midnight
Elmin Sterro
Midnight
We've seen EBA attack their own TOWERS. Maybe they were transferring it. Maybe they were making it so we couldn't attack it that night while we were on a roll.

Rewards falling from outposts or holdings that the GAME delivers (as compared to being stored there) is way too easy to exploit.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of PvP party rewards. We just have to think of something harder to exploit.

We have had a few friendly takeovers. It was necessary because there is no non-hostile means of ownership transfer.

indeed.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Smitty
Finally brought this one up in that 75 page massive thread as well..
Meaningless PvP, is a term we throw around, Asked Bringslite in the other thread what if anything would cause him to attack another settlement. Basically his response was nothing except direct attack against his settlement would cause him to attack anything else on the map.

Which leads me to believe that many groups see PvP as a detractor and something to avoid not something to actively seek out.
PvP=Player vs Player. One sub-category of which (yes, the one almost everyone thinks of immediately) is Player fighting Player. it is not, however, the only kind of PvP that exists, as any dedicated merchant or diplomat, among others, will attest.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post