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.

Some Questions to Spark Forum Activity

Smitty
Will the T3 Legend escalation stay at 72 hours or add an additional 24 to the fallow time?

For the first part of last year there was no working fallow, it was then added, Are the 24, 48, 72 hour ( perhaps 96) now working as you envisioned? Or was the introduction of fallow time more of a reaction to people getting burned out of clearing them so much when they were growing?
Duffy Swiftshadow
IIRC correctly Fallow time was always there from the beginning it was just broken and resetting at server downtime which happened to be less than the lowest possible time of 24 hours.
Bob
Smitty
Will the T3 Legend escalation stay at 72 hours or add an additional 24 to the fallow time?

For the first part of last year there was no working fallow, it was then added, Are the 24, 48, 72 hour ( perhaps 96) now working as you envisioned? Or was the introduction of fallow time more of a reaction to people getting burned out of clearing them so much when they were growing?

72 is the max for the moment. And as Duffy mentioned, fallow time was pretty much always in, there was just a long period where it reset at every downtime. I have played with the exact amounts of fallow time a bit based on a desire to give settlements a break to gather more freely in the monster hexes between escalations, and to push players to tackle escalations further away when all the nearby hexes are fallow, but they're still reasonably close to what I'd originally planned.
Bringslite
Time to pull this out. The forum has been too quiet. I want to acknowledge that this has been brought up before and that a recent mini essay from Paddy of The Fianna got me thinking about it again.

THE REAL FUN KILLER

I think that in some ways we do have a little bit of responsibility. Not for whether the game succeeds but rather for some of the level of fun that is possible right now. Mostly my thoughts here are about how we all respond to aggression(PVP). It isn't as if any one group is responsible for any of what I am putting down herein, it is a default reaction that everyone has in common. I am not really sure if anything can be done about it either, but here goes:

We all sometimes want a little PVP right? There isn't much else that is truly exciting anymore except maybe the recipe lottery. So what happens when a big group conducts an aggressive move on a smaller group? If the smaller group does not react, nothing happens except they get to feel crappy. If the smaller group(which most likely can't really do much harm to the larger) reacts and returns aggression, the response is to scorch their entire land right? Now keep in mind that I am not condoning for smaller groups to act or react in toxic ways to aggression and feel they should be immune to getting smashed. They also have some responsibility here.

In large healthy, populated games there is much more room and possibility to make allies, to regroup when smashed and even to play groups against each other. Here and now though it is very difficult. So is "Measured Response" something that is beyond our powers? I don't know if it is and I don't know for sure if it would help. Smaller groups will still usually get beaten in individual battles anyway, but do they have to lose everything possible for fighting back when attacked? For trying to get a little fun and glory for themselves?

Are we going to keep damaging the fragile game that we have, before it can get better?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Wolf of Rathglen
More power groups are definitely needed. In a drama there are only so many ways 5 power blocs can sleep with each other and get in fights later before the plot lines get old.

I think the other factor is lack of Settlement or Kingdom level and alliance mechanics to use. We're playing the game at those levels but with only company level tools and that starts to drive anyone crazy after not too long.

In the meantime…. hmm… Stand in a circle and bet on a fight? Companies or settlements settling small issues via their Champions?
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Yeah, there needs to be ways to actually win wars for real, ways to regroup, and ways for new natioms to rise and old ones to fall. In other words, all the things a healthy samdbox has that this one just doesnt have yet. There also need to be many more of them and many people in each one. In a healthy sandbox you got the ability tp see all kinds of shifting political arrangements, wars come and go all the time and with more players and more factions well, there is some degree of separation and a somewhat more healthy level of detachment. Perhaps we have all come to know each other…a little TOO well? So much so that whatever headaches come about from the usual sandbox drama and frustrations (everyones got a breaking point) are magnified?

I will say I normally would be for settling small to medium severity matters via honor duels, but I dont think PvP im this game is really geared towards true 1v1 type duels. Main reason is you got more a rock-paper-scissors-nuke thing going where some classes are just inherently better or worse than others to such a degree that the power gap is just a complete joke. Then there is of course that one class with that one super powerful easily spammable combo as the nuke (there is always at least one lol). smile

However, pairs of duelling champions are doable and probably more fair. One guy can make up for their partner's weaknesses and vice versa. For honor duels that matter I say do it in pairs.

So here is what I am gonna work with for 2v2 honor duel rules:

- Same tier gear all around (different bonuses ok)
- Stay in hex
- No Consumables
- Mind Your Manners

I will accept honor duels in lieu of months of pointless battles that cant be won by either side and may or may not turn ugly. The No Consumables is negotiable, the other three are not.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Edam
Interestingly trial by battle may still be legal in the US as it has never been directly outlawed. ( It was outlawed in England in 1819 after the defendants in a well known murder appeal Ashford v Thornton (1818 ) 106 ER 149 tried to have it resolved by combat. )
Midnight
Conflict begets conflict in any game.

When the entire game is on easy mode because a micro-population isn't short of any resource, they can get bored and start to create conflict. That same swimming in riches issue also makes peace less valuable. Throw in the idea that folks are going to try and establish "territory" with the hope it will be held in the future, and conflict should be expected.

The fact that most of the people who enrolled (and the vast majority of the people that stayed) enjoy PvE more than PvP is the only reason the world isn't a big meaningless battlefield. The fact that the best fights and most combat outbreaks are over escalation bosses and not the holdings that we were intended to fight over is a symptom of that PvE preference.

Escalation is also related to the ease that many people could give up this game for a finished game. When you wonder whether the game will ever be finished, and your settlement can't be burned out anyway, why not escalate every issue and hope the other side backs down? Conversely, why back down when they can't burn down your settlement?
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Zax
Shoulds Woulds Coulda.

There shouldn't be as many settlements, player population proves this point. With fewer settlements, there would have been fewer "Power Blocks". With fewer "Power Blocks" there could have been more of a chance that the aforementioned "little guys" could band together with other "little guys" to form their own "Power Block".

Realize what game you are playing.

This is a game of territory and controlling that territory by various means. True, the mechanics are not all there. True, the playerbase is not as populous as it was projected to be. However, this is a game where you will get pushed on the playground. If you can't handle that, then maybe this is mot the game for you. If you cannot use diplomacy or are unwilling to work with others, you are not going to have a good time.

Realize who you are as a player.

Why do you play this game? What do you want from PFO? There are always prices to pay when playing a territorial sandbox. Be it having to be alert when gathering, or taking down an escalation, you have to be on your toes.

Though we all wait to see what "Newcorp." will do, who they are, what they hope to achieve, we currently have what we have. A territorial sandbox with a low population. Please play accordingly…
Zax
* can't edit…
Shoulda Woulda Coulda
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post