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.
|MidniteArrow 08.16.2016 18:32|
My $0.02: At the time company A feuds company B, the window should be fixed for the duration of the feud, at the time the feud is declared. Both companies should have a complete understanding of when they need to be in-game to participate. And a feuding company shouldn't have their investment of influence squandered by an unknown change by the feuded company.
But this should not impact changing the window for any future feuds, or for feud extensions. Yes, this means that a company may have two PvP windows. But at least no one will be surprised by that. At the time everyone planned their game time, they knew what to expect.
And honestly, at first, this is what I thought was happening this past weekend. To me, changing windows after a feud is declared seems like an exploit.
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
|Fiery 08.16.2016 18:44|
It doesn't seem like an exploit to me, because being able to change windows is not a bug. It *may* be illogical, it *may* be against design intent, but it is not an exploit. I think everyone (and yes, I mean the community as a whole, including myself) is too willing to throw the word exploit around, when to me it should refer specifically to exploitation of a bug, aka an action that violates the eula.
|Thorgrim Foegrinder 08.16.2016 18:53|
FieryI think it's certainly possible to exploit incompletely implemented features. For me, it's all in the intent - if you know that what you are doing is gaining an advantage that you shouldn't have, then it's an exploit.
Then again, I even think that gaming monster group spawn mechanics is an exploit, so I may just be extreme in my attitude on the subject.
[Sylva] is the premier Nature based settlement in Pathfinder Online. We're a family that has come together through the game, and we're one of the most active settlements currently. We have a solid roleplaying foundation and are a home to those who both love and hate PvP.
[The Seventh Veil] is a meta-game group with members in several different settlements. We've created many guides and spreadsheets for the game that are referenced by hundreds of players on a daily basis and we maintain multiple websites like [Goblinary.com], [The Storehouse], and [The Unofficial PFO Atlas] to make information more readily available. The Seventh Veil promotes positive game play at all times.
|Bob 08.16.2016 22:48|
From the Terms of Service:
If you find some condition, combination of actions, location, or feature that is broken or provides you an advantage you should not have due to a bug, don't do that thing. Report it.
Don't get hung up on the word "bug," since you should really just take that to mean "something about the game that doesn't feel right." If you find any aspect of the game that feels imbalanced, don't take advantage of that imbalance, report it. If we reply that it's okay to take advantage of it, then it's not cheating to take advantage of it. Most of the time, that's what we wind up saying. Maybe we don't think it's imbalanced enough to worry about it until we have a chance to fix it. Maybe we think it's fine as long as everyone knows about it. Maybe it's something that we'd rather not have working that way but that we're stuck with because of some technology we're using.
If we later change our minds and state that it's not okay to take advantage of it, then it's cheating to take advantage of it. Likewise, if you don't report it, and we think it's pretty clearly an unfair advantage, then we'll consider that cheating and deal with it accordingly. Admittedly, oftentimes it's not obvious that something provides an unfair advantage until the issue is looked at closely, and we take that into account.
Also, to be clear, we've had very little behavior that we've considered cheating, and most cases called for little more than a warning.
|Duffy Swiftshadow 08.17.2016 07:14|
We've discussed it a lot internally and I have a bit publicly, I am strongly in favor of feuding or at least what we currently have with that mechanic being simplified a bit and rearranged to reflect reality and current social constructs better.
Step 1 is move feuding to the Settlement level and/or rename it War or something, but the result should be mechanically capturing holdings is a settlement level activity because everyone sees them as settlement assets that helps everyone. This would of course require something like influence or a new system to govern this holding growth at the settlement level, more about this bit later.
Step 2 when a feud/wars is launched the PvP windows need to be locked in, I'm still in favor of the attackers window needing to be close to or matching the defender or something, but that's a bit of separate topic. Once a feud/war is done there needs to be a mandated cooldown to allow any changes to go through (this can be as short or as long as needed, maybe it's 10 mins or an hour, shouldn't be a huge deal or amount of time). This encourages better planning and use of longer feuds/wars with a built in chance for reprieve via alterations, but it does raise questions about overlapping attacks from different or allied sources. I think at that level it shouldn't be easy to just piggyback on someone else's war, I think perhaps those 3rd parties should still pay but they basically buy into the initial attack and are restricted by the duration of the first attack and eventual cooldown to switch up settings.
There could be some wiggle room for messing with it so maybe everyone is set to the greatest attack's duration regardless of what you payed (new groups joining pay the highest cost)? That should discourage using spare companies and what not to game the system or lower risk.
Something like this solves a few problems: Company hopping within a settlement is no longer needed, small perk. Moving companies between settlements no longer can mess with ownership and PvP windows of static 'settlement' assets. Staggering or trying to stack multiple feuds/wars has no effect on the now restricted ability to change PvP windows. Windows cannot suddenly change mid attack, but do have a set time to change once the initial attack has gone through.
That's the main bit, little detail in there that is left in the air is how the influence/ownership thing should work and I'm of the opinion that either Settlement growth should be a self cycling thing (building holdings lets you improve your settlement and improving your settlement lets you add more holdings up to some sort of cap) or move Influence as we know it today (Player count and activity based) to the settlement level. Give companies something more personal and not based on size at a later point to do stuff or build things that really are just for them and their daily activities.
Anyways that's one way it could be touched up but more or less retain how we organize and do this stuff today. As a merc I would love if at some point we could pay the influence to join someone else's attack and act on their behalf without company hopping, but that's not as big a priority.
|Bringslite 08.17.2016 12:35|
FieryI also have some ideas about this. They really need a foundation in which Companies are more in line with what they were first designed to be, back in the day. Much like Duffy's, my idea involves capturing holdings being settlement level activity. Further enhanced by Feuding becoming more about "raiding" holdings and even into settlements proper, during feuds.
Yeah I have always been opposed to Thorn Guards standing idle when attackers go through settlements, but this idea has it only happening within feud windows. That with some simple raiding mechanic for holdings keeps the focus (in feuding) still being about getting to the target company, but adds in some actual REWARDS for successful PVP feuding. During feuds but all around outside of feud windows, it should just stay as is, lucky chance encounters between enemies. How to keep things from getting sloppy inside pvp windows and inside settlements, with additional settlement members about the place, is another problem.
The issues Bob laid out where mostly about Company hopping, manipulating PVP windows, stacking feuds, and effectively locking companies/settlements from making normal changes. The problem here is that Feuding is tied to WAR mechanics for settlement level conflict. My first thought is that feuding should be a PVP window for companies all of itself OR completely separate windows. That just possibly complicates things though. Not the goal but the opposite actually.
However all of this could come together, the goal would be to make things less complicated and more possibly rewarding. In a nutshell (the numbers are just examples, alter to what seems most reasonable):
1. DECLARATION- Your company declares a feud against another company. The cost is one influence point per character in your company, FLAT. The lead time is 24 hours warning and once declared, neither the initiator nor the target can add or have characters leave company.
2. FEUD WINDOW- This (after the declaration) lasts for a window of some hours, let's say 16 and must not overlap server up or down.
A. During this window, feuding can occur anywhere except wherein some settlements might(future mechanics) make feuding inside illegal(of course at some cost to the settlement). This leaves GW/NewCorp free to make feuding inside NPC settlement hexes illegal as they choose as well as players.
B. During this feud window, BOTH and ALL parties(add-ons below) are vulnerable to pvp AND holding raids.
3. THE RAIDING PART- Raiding is started by attacking an outpost/holding and beating the guard compliment, after which the raiders can begin taking Bulk materials as they are generated, so long as they can hold the outpost/holding.
A. Outpost raiding: Raiders can capture both outposts if they like and keeping them during the Feud Window gives them access to the Bulk that is normally generated by time(or something). At any time during a raid that defenders are the only ones in the outpost capture circle, the raiding timer is suspended.
B. Holding raids: The real prize. Outposts must be secured before Holding break in is possible. Once also secured, holdings are just like outposts, generating Bulk to take with the addition of access to the holding vaults as long as the raiders have control of the outposts AND the holding. In addition, every 10 min a holding is under "being raided" status, the true owner loses one point of influence and the raider company gains one point. At any time the defenders are inside the holding capture circle, the raid timer is suspended.
4. END OF WINDOW- When a feud window ends, all free pvp ends. All raiding timers are suspended. The target company is on 24 hour minimum cool down. Alternately, it could be two server down phases.
5. ADD-ONS- Meh, I think that I am done here. Let someone else figure out this part.
Edit: A quick thought here that might help mitigate the aggressor's advantage of choosing the Feud Window. Add-ons for the aggressor must be sorted out BEFORE the feud is declared. That cost is on them. Help defending could be voluntary characters from the settlement where the target company is Bannered. These extra helpers just have no ability to suspend timers…
Virtute et Armis
|Decius 08.17.2016 17:38|
The purpose of the feud mechanics is to communicate to the system who is involved in the fight, extract a cost from the initiator, and determine what changes hands as a result of the conflict.
The only reason I see to restrict movement into or out of companies in a feud is if the cost to feud is based on the population of the feuding companies. I think that adjusting the cost after the fact is a better way of handling that. I'm well and truly confused about why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to prevent people from leaving a company while a feud is in progress; I can certainly understand wanting to prevent people from manipulating company size to reduce their cost.
Adjustments to how the holding warfare works might be warranted; I like the idea of a relatively cheap (if unopposed) way for a company to steal the current day's bulk resource production.
And to the OP: I still believe that knowingly taking advantage of a bug that makes a window longer than it should be is not acceptable gameplay. I think that everyone still playing is good enough that we don't need to define that edge any better than that.
|Edam 08.17.2016 18:02|
To be honest, feuding being company based when player affiliation is mainly to settlement is always going to have issues.
|Fiery 08.17.2016 18:11|
I think the design was always based on a company identity, whereas that's likely not a realistic expectation…as population grows, and if settlements require rather large populations as previously stated, companies *might* develop a stronger identity…but it seems unlikely to me to be significant.
|Midnight 08.17.2016 18:24|
1) If a particular company holds the most belligerent members of a settlement, and you want to punish them, then you don't want them escaping your feud.
2) If a particular company holds the most productive members of a settlement, and you want to interdict them, then you don't want them escaping your feud.
Feuds have been about a lot more than mere holdings combat, and if your targets can easily jump out of the feud, why is there even an influence cost to feuding?
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.