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.

abandoned settlement takeovers

Midnight
Duffy Swiftshadow
But with folks finally starting to gobble up the last couple empties we felt it was prudent to grab a few of the closer ones before we found ourselves with some more neighbors in our backyard we didn't get along with.

So you took those settlements to keep out others who don't share your group-think?

Do you at least understand why some of us would like a more diverse set of player organizations that might NOT get along? Can you admit that *might* be what's best for the game?

Once again, not to single you out, you're just the guy who has overtly explained what is likely a reason for almost all settlement take-overs that occurred.

I totally get that the game attracts control freaks, and that control freaks like to control things. I was just hoping for a greater diversity of control freaks and the possibility that such diversity would yield more conflict/content over the long run.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Smitty
One thing new corp will have to do is fix the settlement thing ..

New groups who check out the game are going to be instantly turned off when they find they find there is no way to take over settlement and make it their own.. Without placating to some existing power blocs demands..
You can say well it takes ___ time for them to build up, and they need to do ( list of things to control a settlement) ….. all you want ..

Yet if a group looks at this when they start in the first week and learns they can’t take anything over.. they are not going to play an hour past that point.. right now there are 0 options to that group so why should they bother with the game at all.. That is what all the settlement take over stuff has led to ..

Im not disillusioned enough to think people are breaking down doors trying to get in PFO right now .. but that is still no reason to fill the door with brick and mortar..
Duffy Swiftshadow
Sure, I get it, but it's a competitive conquering sandbox and your expectations are simply not realistic without drastically changing how people tend to think, organize themselves, play these sort of games, or even how this particular game was setup. No one was ever going to conquer a settlement as an unaffiliated company. Without another settlement's support or eventually factions, it's not happening, that was very apparent from very early on for most of the reasons I outlined in my other post.

This sort of thing is always going to happen, why wouldn't it? Groups will form, they will break, new ones will form, territory will come and go, the cycle goes on and on. Everything working as intended. Sure right now it's all a little blah cause of smaller player base and missing mechanics, but none of what is happening is the least bit surprising. We've grown leaps and bounds due to one power block falling apart and we've focused on developing a power-base of like-minded or at least agreeable allies/friends to help achieve our goals, as have others, that's the point of the game.

The goal is to grow and accomplish things, if that makes us control freaks then so be it I guess. What else should we be doing? Besides the only 'new' group to take anything is Fianna and they got help from Aragon, an established group from the start. And there's what less than a handful of them? If we wanted to stop their takeover we easily could have, hell we had a week to do it, but we didn't cause we kinda like them, or at least like their existence. They're now closer to us and even actively messing with us on the behalf of another group, but they're doing it well and they aren't aggravating or personally attacking us over every little thing so we see no reason to escalate conflict with them. Believe it or not I think they have more in common with our general mentality of how we play the game RP wise than some of the other groups we've butted heads with, they just focus on a different play style and have different goals than we do.
Tigari
Duffy, I agree with you on that's how the game is supposed to be played, but what I think midnight was hinting at with your settlement take over (and midnight correct me if wtong), but by you playing the game this way, your shutting out opportunity to get new players involved at this level now. Maybe instead we should of held back the want for personal growth, and assisted in new groups taking control of these settlements, even if theyre only a handful of players. Wether this would be best for the game or not may be opinion.
Bringslite
Some fun things.

The minimum cost to "encircle" or threaten a settlement is, I believe, 900 Influence. As of last I was informed, the reqs have dropped from a holding and 2 outposts to a holding and one.

Not doing math today, but the minimum company size of 6 gets you a cap of 300 Influence and a roster of 11 gets you up to a cap of 700 so at a guess maybe 17 or 20 gets you to 900?

Once you make it through from Friday(email declaration) to Monday server up, it is yours and nothing short of exposed cheating/exploiting/abandonment(not removing holdings but disappearing) can wrest it from you.

I didn't know this but an unsponsored company can actually accumulate influence. Have not had an opportunity to try and place a holding with one. Not sure how an unsponsored company would get 12 kits without having at least one "power bloc" friend.

Midnight, it looks possible that it could be done by an unsponsored company and with a 23/7 window except if there were even just a few characters in opposition to it. Hard enough to get together what you need to start. Throw a 23/7 window on there and…. well, who is going to try that again if they get knocked down the first try? Unsponsored, your rank max is only 8. I suppose that to start an attempted takeover, it might not be so bad for a company to HAVE TO LEAVE IT'S SPONSOR. Completely agree that variety of entities is preferable to larger "ghost town" power blocs but there aren't any "variety of entities" around to make bold "moves".

Everyone, no one here really did anything outside of expanding their reach and potential according to guidelines and rules laid out by GW. Maybe this will cause some more NEW guidelines to come down about what makes a settlement eligible or vulnerable for takeover because of all this. That isn't saying The Dominion is in favor of taking settlements "on the cheap" like that. We will be most happy if the rules get tightened up a bit. Again, because of all this, maybe they will.

We might just see settlements taken away from resisting groups by force sooner because of this!
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
One more thing for both Ryos and Midnight: Expecting other groups to act like and see things the way that you do is a silly chase. I've learned that, again, playing this game.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
Tigari
Duffy, I agree with you on that's how the game is supposed to be played, but what I think midnight was hinting at with your settlement take over (and midnight correct me if wtong), but by you playing the game this way, your shutting out opportunity to get new players involved at this level now. Maybe instead we should of held back the want for personal growth, and assisted in new groups taking control of these settlements, even if theyre only a handful of players. Wether this would be best for the game or not may be opinion.

Sure, maybe, but unfortunately it's been over a year now. We left them dormant until very recently, and even then only starting moving due to others behavior. Despite perhaps popular belief we're very reactionary, we let the last capture locally go and it kinda bit us in the posterior, so this time we aren't letting it happen. Besides, there's no reason we won't be filling those settlements with new players when the game picks up, hell that's our goal. The argument being used kinda assumes a bunch of inherently negative things about us and presumes that there will not be a significant number of players interested in running these settlements and being allied with us (well we hope, might not be in the end, dunno!).

As a counterpoint, if it was a year from now with 10,000 players and a fully claimed map a new group wouldn't be able to get a foothold easily, why is that acceptable then and not now? Just because of the current low pop? Or your perception that the game isn't real and should be thrown away and started over? How is any of this that significantly different from the territory conflict in other games like EVE?
Bringslite
Tigari
Duffy, I agree with you on that's how the game is supposed to be played, but what I think midnight was hinting at with your settlement take over (and midnight correct me if wtong), but by you playing the game this way, your shutting out opportunity to get new players involved at this level now. Maybe instead we should of held back the want for personal growth, and assisted in new groups taking control of these settlements, even if theyre only a handful of players. Wether this would be best for the game or not may be opinion.

Not addressed to me, but I think that would have been great. We have seen lots of opportunities to hold back to maybe keep people from quitting and spreading stories that kept new people from trying. Unfortunately, when someone wants to do things(that are legit according to rules) they do it.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Tigari
The reason I'd say it's OK now is for the exact reason they said for Early Enrollment. To give us players time to built a world before Open Enrollment. One point I'd say is, in my opinion the game has already been put into Open Enrollment. The day GW allowed anyone to make an account and not just the Kickstart people, hence OPEN enrollment.

Also, I mean nothing Negatime about what you did. As a group leader you made the best choice for your group, and I find nothing wrong about that. And as far as your growth goes, if 10,000 players join, I have no doubt about you being able to fill them. But I think the point was for players to choose to make there own blocs or join another. Where if they get one of those settlements it's only through you. (Again, another reason it was a good choice for your group, because you can offer that possibility with your recruitment, the ability to run a settlement in the League.)
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Tyncale
PFO, in its current utterly unfinished, unbalanced and abandoned state, is being taken advantage off by those that decided to stick around.
Who else should be taking advantage of it, Tyncale? Many of us are playing a game we enjoy. The current owners of High Road took it over when it wasn't even abandoned, excising our former lords and masters to make our own home because they were absent. Do you feel like that was "taking advantage" of the fact we are still playing? At what point do those of us who pay to play (and actually play) stop owing something to those who aren't playing?
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post