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

Midnight
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.

I'd listen to him, folks. He's kicking your butts and you don't even know it.

1/2 smile

The great thing about a fully developed PvP party game is that there are so many forms that multiple players can feel they are winning in multiple ways.

In Eve there are folks who have amazing Planetary Interaction setups that other players might envy.

Meanwhile, I did everything I wanted in that game and felt successful while never touching P.I.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
The EBA would have hated Napoleon Hill.

"Victory is always possible for the person who refuses to stop fighting."
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Drogon
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?
When you put in that way, it doesn't sound balanced and I personally am not asking for all of this, just throwing out ideas…if we can all be constructive maybe both sides can come up with some fair tweaks that cannot be exploited by either side…maybe this is impossible ?
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. "
Edam
Current PvP is mainly two rabbles of individuals all turning up equipped with whatever suits them and having at each other.

Zycor was a bit toxic but one thing he did have correct is the way this game works with combos of conditionals setting up things, the first group to get a hang of doctrines is going to wipe the table.
Tigari
Edam
Current PvP is mainly two rabbles of individuals all turning up equipped with whatever suits them and having at each other.

Zycor was a bit toxic but one thing he did have correct is the way this game works with combos of conditionals setting up things, the first group to get a hang of doctrines is going to wipe the table.
…Golgotha has been using a Doctrine since ..month one? (somewhere around there)
Decius
Tigari
Edam
Current PvP is mainly two rabbles of individuals all turning up equipped with whatever suits them and having at each other.

Zycor was a bit toxic but one thing he did have correct is the way this game works with combos of conditionals setting up things, the first group to get a hang of doctrines is going to wipe the table.
…Golgotha has been using a Doctrine since ..month one? (somewhere around there)
The same doctrine?
Tigari
Maybe, maybe not
Tink says Stab
My doctrine is stab stuff right in the face.
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Stop trying to define meaningful based on your own perspective and then project that on others. Instead of "Make PVP Meaningful", what PFO needs is "Make PVP Accessible".
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
Smitty

Drogon
I am under the belief that nothing that can be coded that would deter some folks in EoX from attacking you daily. My personal opinion is the current system is fair because the defenders pick the time and length of the window, the defenders pick the locations, the defenders get guards to help them , and they also get a map that shows them where they are being attacked.
This forever war is something that players created and only the players can really stop. Any other option that is coded into the game could be worked around to continue attacking you everyday if people are determined to do so..

If you lock company adding and dropping - We already know holding warfare is suppose to be settlement vs settlement in PvP hexes during PvP windows. So once that is fixed and Rep loss isn’t an issue ( that is the only reason we are switching companies right now..) locking company membership would do little to a group that dedicates 2 companies and the influence to fighting you.

If you say no other company from the attacking settlement can attack you after the end of a feud- People have already said they would run 2 combat characters in different settlements if needed - end result is you would still defend every day ( but every other day the names would change). This could also lead to us fighting Phearos for 2 days and Sylva for 2 days, if you guys aren’t going to defend each other.. then perhaps the word alliance doesn’t mean what I thought it meant.
The one thing that would certainly do the trick was the thing a dev mentioned about only using feuds on the weekend, that would do the trick because many in EoX would just leave the game at that point. That is too much system control telling players when and where they can do things.

The only real solution is diplomacy..
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post