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.

I would like to build a city

Bringslite
Fair enough. I do wonder if GW did much theory crafting on the cost of losing an average holding setup. Loss of around 75 Infl seems steep. Then again, my numbers might be wrong.

But the possibility of losing 25 influence/feud isn't why many of the EoX moved on, is it? I mean you could still just start one feud and have all of those hours (days) to fight. You just over feuded your target area until they stopped building holdings or being available.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Tigari
No, pretty sure we left for a few things added up. PvP became non-excistant. We beat TSV (I mean, they stopped logging in to defend their holdings, for whatever reason. so a win in my book), and because they stopped logging in, we had no one we wanted to fight.

We could of gone and attacked a random place, but we either: liked them enough not too, already had deals with them that were more useful or figured they'd start crying all over the forums about the mean ol Golgothans. Then we heard about the state of the game and devs. Alot of people are afraid to invest time into something they think is gunna disappear after that kind of announcement.

Plus add on the recent changes of the game. It was already is a meh state, and we tried to voice our opinions on it. Then they went with the other side, and make the game even more Meh for us.
tribuzio
Bringslite
Fair enough. I do wonder if GW did much theory crafting on the cost of losing an average holding setup. Loss of around 75 Infl seems steep. Then again, my numbers might be wrong.

But the possibility of losing 25 influence/feud isn't why many of the EoX moved on, is it? I mean you could still just start one feud and have all of those hours (days) to fight. You just over feuded your target area until they stopped building holdings or being available.

The stated goal was to have some specific player quit the game, when those players stopped showing up at the battles they either felt that there was no chance of getting it or that they had achieved it, so they moved on.

A there wasn't another "hated target" available they moved on to other games instead of changing targets.

- * -

For avid PvPers a mechanic that allow them to constantly wardec the same target is perfectly fine, for non avid PvPers it is harassment. That is an irreconcilable difference of opinions.
Tigari
Also, bringlite, think of it like this. the aggressor has to take 2 smallholdings, and the holding to win. This was not done ONCE until TSV left their holdings. So we can assume taking a holding is MUCH harder then defending it. So its not really a 25vs75 influence cost. It took us how many fueds and we still never got a holding?
Tigari
Also, bringlite, think of it like this. the aggressor has to take 2 smallholdings, and the holding to win. This was not done ONCE until TSV left their holdings. So we can assume taking a holding is MUCH harder then defending it. So its not really a 25vs75 influence cost. It took us how many fueds and we still never got a holding?
Bringslite
Tigari
Also, bringlite, think of it like this. the aggressor has to take 2 smallholdings, and the holding to win. This was not done ONCE until TSV left their holdings. So we can assume taking a holding is MUCH harder then defending it. So its not really a 25vs75 influence cost. It took us how many fueds and we still never got a holding?

Actually no. Most people lay out their holding at +0 (weakest guard setup) and their outposts at +3 (stronger and more respawns) so the "Holding" is probably the easier, once you get to it.

I did not realize that you were not pushing to take holdings along with the rest. Obviously a great way to expect that your target will be around if they care about their holdings. I can see why that would not work well when the holdings are gone.

I don't think that any one person or group harmed the game. Probably more like a little bit of everyone's fault. Look back over all the history. Avid PVPers came in wanting a certain level of activity and "PVP accepting" pioneers came in not really knowing or expecting what a few weeks of constant PVP would be like.

There was a lot of foundation laid down (in the forums) that probably got people willing to try an open PVP game feeling safe because Reputation and "Funnel of suck" were addressed so heavily.

As all of this is figured out and a balance found (if possible) there will be periods of up and down enjoyment for any one individual or group. Sometimes you will feel like the game is just how you want it (or close enough) then Wham! new mechanics that skew things toward "The other Guy's" preference.

It is really hard to maintain people's interest level while one side or another is on top.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Just Dak
This is one of the tamest communities I have ever been around that involved the possibility of non consensual pvp. Plenty more "toxic" communities than ours have existed while maintaining a higher player population. I don't think the community failed this game at all, or failed the title in any way.
Give me a reasonable despot any day. Someone that constantly reminds everyone that they are virtuous and honorable can not be trusted to be either. If you are good we will know by your deeds, if you are reasonable we will know by our deals.
tribuzio
Tigari
Also, bringlite, think of it like this. the aggressor has to take 2 smallholdings, and the holding to win. This was not done ONCE until TSV left their holdings. So we can assume taking a holding is MUCH harder then defending it. So its not really a 25vs75 influence cost. It took us how many fueds and we still never got a holding?

Actually we have lost holdings while actively defending them. And one was "saved" in a questionable way as we were able to place an outpost that had disappeared for some bug, so extending the battle by a day.
Midnight
tribuzio
The stated goal was to have some specific player quit the game, when those players stopped showing up at the battles they either felt that there was no chance of getting it or that they had achieved it, so they moved on.

The only stated goal I knew of was regime change. We didn't need or want anyone to quit the game, we just needed one settlement to depose their leadership, or for those leaders to change their actions towards EoX (which would almost require regime change since that regime refused to make any agreements with EoX, citing their distrust of Eox). Instead, that settlement just stopped replacing holdings so that (combined with the company hopping that everyone does) it was too costly to feud all their companies, and they no longer needed to show up for fights, since they had no holdings to defend.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Schedim
Again it seems it is the lack of consequences that is (a part) of the problem. If towns needed holdings to exist EoX may have had a success in their goal to change regime or policy … Or if you could burn/damage/inhibit a town in any way at all…

And company hopping … Dont get me starting on that one…
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
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post