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.

Efficient Influence Gain For Experienced Characters?

Bob
Bringslite
@ Bob

Straight up question, Mr. Settles.

Does GW consider it exploitive to use our 1000exp alts to generate influence? You know, max out the easy stuff and "reroll"?

If yes, can you offer another route until new player traffic picks up?

We're not considering that an exploit. Ideally, you'd find spending time playing your advanced characters more valuable overall, but I can see how there would be occasions where generating influence quickly would be your most pressing concern.
Takasi
Bob, couldn't someone keep rerolling new characters and making more companies though? At what point will deleted characters be removed from companies?
Bringslite
Takasi
Bob, couldn't someone keep rerolling new characters and making more companies though? At what point will deleted characters be removed from companies?

Yeah. That is a concern, but also an eventual reckoning. That will be the real catastyclism.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bob
Takasi
Bob, couldn't someone keep rerolling new characters and making more companies though? At what point will deleted characters be removed from companies?

Deleted characters do get removed from companies, so that's not a worry. It's the inactive characters that cause an issue, and I'm not sure when we'll get a chance to do something about that.
Bringslite
Midnight
Bringslite
I am genuinely curious. Why do you feel that feuding is unsustainable?

First, not everyone who feuds wants to capture a holding. The best (and most important) fights in this game have been over escalations, not holdings. Ignoring holdings will cost 25 influence a feud, though.

Second, due to company hopping, you really have to declare multiple feuds to interdict a particular group of players, but the more companies you feud, the more holdings you need to capture (in the same 2 days) to avoid losing that 25 influence multiplied by the number of feuds you've declared.

Third, you've had entire settlements like Phaeros who chose not to have any holdings, thus guaranteeing that 25 influence had ZERO chance of being recovered. If you wanted to feud the 6 largest companies from Phaeros that's 150 influence lost. Totally unsustainable. I defy anyone to consistently earn that much influence every 2 days, even with the pre-layoffs player population/participation.

Fourth, if you aren't the blob (and especially if you are fighting the blob) the odds are often against you achieving the success conditions of taking holdings even when your opponent chooses to have holdings.

1. There should be more customizable feuds or at least two kinds. See below.

2. The answer to company hoping was to basically allow entire settlements to participate in at least the hexes involved. Not working well. smile Starting 6 feuds to "interdict" players is basically Warring a settlement and not very cost efficient since they could form a company (totally new) 2 minutes after you declare a feud. YOU ARE WASTING INFLUENCE. Not entirely the players' fault because there are few other options possible.

EoX's issue (at least it seemed to be) was a phobia that anyone they feuded would switch company or not log in or sit inside their town until it passed. Seriously, that might be one of your most frequent complaints. All you really ever wanted was to "kill" your target's players. The feuding inside settlements is still there (still a game wrecker, IMO). They don't log in while feuded? <—-You have won. Better than gear degradation or kills, you have essentially put those players "out" of the world for two plus days. They company hop possibly to avoid the feud? <—- Yeah. Needs to be looked at. Should cost something to do that during a feud.

3. Well Phaeros DID have holdings. They just decided that they were tired of the constant fighting (pure speculation, all of this paragraph) and took away your power or, if you like, they took the initiative from the EoX. Why should they build new holdings if they are tired of feeding the EoX?

4. Doesn't make sense. Little guys should not start feuds vs "blobs" unless they are confident of a "Master Plan" that will work. They need to have calculated risks just as much as anyone. Saying that it is unfair because they are small is a red herring or a weak excuse to save the "blob" from having calculated risk.

~~The Below~~

About Feuds:

Minor Feud: Normal duration. Flat cost of 10 Influence. Does not allow enemy holding capture or destruction.
*A company that does not have a minimum of one holding with two outposts may not declare a Major Feud. They may declare a Minor Feud.
*Minor Feuds are between just one aggressor company and one target company.
*Duration of Minor Feuds is wide open PVP sans structure attack.

Major Feud: Modified duration. Costs as laid out right now, including the penalty to fail a capture. Allows and requires holding capture or destruction.
*A company that has at least one holding with two outposts may declare a Minor Feud or a Major Feud.
*Duration of Major Feuds is now modified so that it includes two of the aggressor's PVP windows and two of the target's PVP windows.
*During a Major Feud, but outside of the PVP windows, action as described under Minor Feuds is "ON".
*During the PVP windows of BOTH the aggressor and the target, either side may try and capture the enemy's outposts and holdings if desired.
*Participation of each side's entire settlement is allowed in any eligible hex during any of the regular PVP windows.

For the Future
*A Minor feud has a lead time of 8 hours.
*A Major Feud has a 24 hour lead time.
*Magical solution to any company hoping problems.
*????

/endderail
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Schedim
Re:Company hopping.

Well, there could be a cost of <something> to start a company and a cooldown between bailing out of one and joining another.

Tangent: If alignments ever enters the game I can see the Lawfuls cooldown longer and the chaotics company cost/upkeep/whatever higher.
Schedim: Peddler and dealer in stuff easily transported, restless wandering the land of the River. Trying to find out how to reawaken the cult of Hanspur. To realise this ambition I created the company named Rats of Hanspur.
You can reach me on: pfo.schedim@gmail.com
Midnight
Bringslite
2. The answer to company hoping was to basically allow entire settlements to participate in at least the hexes involved. Not working well. smile Starting 6 feuds to "interdict" players is basically Warring a settlement and not very cost efficient since they could form a company (totally new) 2 minutes after you declare a feud. YOU ARE WASTING INFLUENCE. Not entirely the players' fault because there are few other options possible.

Well, we don't do it anymore. We had to test it out to see if we could accomplish our goals as well as to be able to do INFORMED crowdforging on the subject of feuding. Plus, Phaeros and allies were still silly enough to think they needed to defend holdings because they too were involved in a learning process. stealth edit: As long as it led to more PvP (including a plethora of holdings to choose from, thus making the defenders spread themselves thinner to cover 6 companies' holdings) no one on my side considered it a waste. Once Phaeros wised up, they wised up completely and feuding even ONE of their companies is now a waste.

But as everyone learned feuding costs too much influence (for the effort it takes to earn) and holdings aren't worth fighting for… feuding stopped.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
Bringslite
3. Well Phaeros DID have holdings. They just decided that they were tired of the constant fighting (pure speculation, all of this paragraph) and took away your power or, if you like, they took the initiative from the EoX. Why should they build new holdings if they are tired of feeding the EoX?

Yup, it was a learning experience, and they learned not to have holdings.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
Bringslite
4. Doesn't make sense. Little guys should not start feuds vs "blobs" unless they are confident of a "Master Plan" that will work. They need to have calculated risks just as much as anyone. Saying that it is unfair because they are small is a red herring or a weak excuse to save the "blob" from having calculated risk.

What you describe is a prescription for stagnation.

The game mechanics are going to have to be very careful about how many different ways the blob is going to be rewarded in this game. Remembering that LAW may give holdings the right to deny a hex to other players you can quickly get to a point where you have to join the cool kids if you really want to play the game. IF Law works that way, holdings need to be far more vulnerable to the little guy than they are now, in my opinion.

Success in recruiting should be rewarded. Success in organizing and keeping your recruits happy should also be rewarded. There are a variety of ways these thing can be rewarded. What I will crowdforge against, even if I'm part of the blob, is a game that makes it too easy for the blob to dominate every aspect of play everywhere they want to.

This is why my second most important issue is Force Projection and opposing teleportation and fast travel. Allowing blobs LOCAL dominance is less loathsome than allowing them GLOBAL dominance.

I've already laid out my arguments (elsewhere) that influence refund mechanics that reward "success" are blob friendly. With holdings being worthless at the moment, people aren't really FEELING the truth of that issue. Mark my words that if holdings become worthwhile, AND someone other than EoX has to feel the futility of fighting a blob, crowdforgers will be coming along to my way of thinking.

Part of me wants to see GPS or some other aggressive group get big, because they will likely expose settlements to levels of PvP that EoX hasn't inflicted upon most settlements. But I worry that rather than creating INFORMED crowdforgers who'd crowdforge with their new enlightenment, it would just create players who quit upon the realization of how blob friendly the game is and upon the realization of just how rigged so many aspects of the game are against their aspirations.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Ravenlute
[offtopic]PvP is not satisfactory beyond just Influence. To be successful it needs to be enjoyable for all parties involved but the losses incurred by the defeated side are too significant. It loses the fun factor and not only does it drive people away from PvP but out of the game completely.

While Holdings allow Bulk Resources, and in the future Development Index, for a Company and the Settlement they are tied to there is nothing for an attacking Company to gain by destroying them. An attacker isn't going to waste all the time and effort just for the possibility of some Bulk Resources. There is no real affect on the Settlement being attacked, they very likely have enough Bulk Resources to keep them at level 10 for a long time and even if they run out of resources the Settlement won't be shut down. I don't think there needs to be any more punishment for the defenders who lose a Holding but there does need to be some kind of reward for the attackers who win. Honestly, this game needs more rewards and less punishment in general.[/offtopic]

Midnight, you've been rallying hard on how Influence affects feuding but I've yet to see anything about how you build up Influence. After all that you've wasted and are now hoarding, surely you have some way to gain it back?
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post