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.

EE 10.2 Release Notes

Bob
The 25% influence loss from a feud if you don't take a holding isn't actually a new mechanic, it's just a rebalance of an existing mechanic. You previously got back 90% of your banked feud influence when the feud ended, thus losing 10%. However, if you took a holding during that feud, then some or all of your influence got banked in the new holding instead. As a result, that influence was safe from the 10% loss when the feud ended. Now that feuds cost a flat 100 influence, and holdings require 100 influence, you effectively bank all of your feud influence into the holding as soon as you take one, protecting all of it from that loss. All we did in 10.2 was change the percentage of loss from 10% to 25%.

These are numbers we'll continue to fiddle with. Certainly, the higher we make that influence loss, the more feud costs favor those groups that are better able to take holdings, and the less desirable companies without holdings are as feud targets. Once we've fully seen the consequences of this change, we can decide whether it's best to scale the loss back down a bit, or whether it's better to fix those consequences with other mechanics.
Midnight
There are too many ways to exploit the game mechanic to cost any potential feuding companies influence:

Having no holdings. (Phaeros has done this for weeks, now).

Having unopposed friendly forces capture the holdings.

Others that I'm not sure you have protected against:

Having holdings that are so low that they get destroyed instead of captured. Where does the influence go?

Tearing down outposts/holdings after the feud is declared. (I remember reading that once an outpost was overrun this would be impossible, but is it impossible from the moment of feud declaration)?

Also, I'm not sure why feuds need an influence loss at all, but a success mechanic always favor blobs over underdogs. If influence needs to be lost, a straight influence loss is preferable to a success mechanic that will cause underdogs to spend more influence (and blobs to spend less) over the long term.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Duffy Swiftshadow
You could also just wait until they flesh out the rest of the game instead of trying to use the same tool to solve every conceivable PvP goal.

This is a work in progress after all.
Midnight
Well Duffy, then they certainly need our input as to what the feud system is failing at.

Plus I don't remember anyone saying feuds were intended solely for holdings conflicts. The fact that feuds allow sanctioned PvP outside of PvP windows and also outside of contested holdings hexes argues against such a concept.

At some point players (and maybe even the devs) will need more clarity over which tools are meant for what.

But today I have a hammer, so of course I want every activity my opponents engage in to be a nail. smile
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Duffy Swiftshadow
Feedback is fine, my complaint with a lot of feedback is that it's often only in terms of trying to accomplish something right now with said feature to server current goals in a clearly work in progress. Yea the current iteration will tell you useful things, but there is never enough actual discussion about how things could or would work, it's always 'make this do the the thing I want right now' not 'if it works like this then are you saying it's for this? How about adding this other thing or taking this into account'.

Really important and occasionally subtle distinction when it comes to discussing game systems.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Maybe an "Under Seige" mechanic? In which a settlement with no holdings at all burns resources faster than a settlement that does have holdings. And a settlement that doesn't have the resources to support the lowest level of training does not provide any support (not training, but support) for its members past that of NPC settlements.

Perhaps attached to a "win condition" under which the group that takes the last holding of a settlement gets some advantage for "beseiging" the settlement. Maybe the cost for feuds on settlements under seige should be lowered?
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Midnight
Duffy Swiftshadow
…How about adding this other thing or taking this into account'.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I just did by asking them to take Phaeros' no-holdings tactic into account, and by asking them to remember that success mechanics (or more appropriately named: failure penalties) always favor the blob over underdogs.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Nihimon
Midnight
Just out of curiosity… what kind of diplomacy do you imagine would persuade your folks to die so I can loot the t3 mats (or escalation boss phat lewt) from your husks?

Probably the same kind of diplomacy that would persuade your folks to be powerless to continue your attacks against Phaeros.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Nihimon
Midnight
It totally ruined the game…

And for those who don't recall whether such a success mechanic was actually Nihimon's idea…

https://goblinworks.com/forum/topic/3698/?page=1#post-43229

Yeah, changing Feud Costs from 10 Influence to 25 Influence totally ruined the game.

And just to point out the really important part of my dastardly plan to thwart Midnight by not having any Holdings:

Nihimon
4. Fix Settlement Support: Require a Settlement to have at least 6 Holdings in order to support Tier 2 Attacks, and at least 18 to support Tier 3 Attacks.

I can only imagine how much totally-er the game would be ruined if they'd fully implemented my idea…
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Bob
Feuds aren't intended to be just about holdings, but we wanted to encourage their use more toward fighting over holdings than toward simply allowing rep-free kills pretty much anywhere, particularly while settlement guards don't help out members of the settlements during feuds. That doesn't mean we don't want feuds to sometimes be about killing your enemies wherever you find them, we just want them to more often be about clearer objectives, ideally ones that draw players together into larger battles. This particular change was a trivial way to try to do that (change one number in a spreadsheet from 90 to 75). We also want to encourage fighting over T3 resources and escalation rewards, but there wasn't nearly as easy a fix for doing that, so that will have to wait a bit. We may do that partially through additional changes to feuds, or through completely different mechanics.

We also do want companies to lose influence regularly, so they can't just build up to their max and keep using the same influence over and over. Influence is intended to keep companies active in various parts of the game, so we want companies to always want to earn more influence. Can't really do that unless influence gets used up to some degree.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post