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.

PvP Window Duration Bug

Duffy Swiftshadow
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Duffy Swiftshadow
It's still a big deal in EvE I'm sure it will be a big deal here, scale doesn't really change the problem it just takes some of the edge off if you happen to be able to field comparable sizes.
Do those large Eve groups have any need to change their active windows on anything like a regular basis, or are they relatively static, based, at least in part, on people who wan to play at that time joining groups that will get them activity at that time?

My intuition is that when you are talking about those large groups, the decisions don't need to be made on a weekly basis, or more than a few times a year. Once you have a few thousand people involved, you should already have a pretty solid grasp on when the largest number will be available. With thousands of players, you're unlikely to be left in a mess because 33% of your potential team have supper plans tomorrow night or 50% of them are at Gencon.

It depends, if they think they can win the fight they set it for their best general time, if not they manipulate the system to avoid fighting and instead try to frustrate their opponents. It doesn't matter if they actually need to change it cause it's a weird week for them if they were using the system to just mark their prime-time, it's that they can manipulate it often and will do so to gain any advantage they can. It will happen and it will be a major strategy if it's possible. It just happened in Word War Bee in EVE, interestingly enough they added PvP windows that are more like PFO in a recent patch so it was a lot closer to what we've seen here than before.

As for numbers, assuming normally even odds: if 1/3 of your side can't make it you're gonna lose to the side that brought everyone. The gap gets worse as the scale gets higher when you start to account for how many people it takes to focus fire kill someone instantly. Nine against 10 isn't as noticeable a problem as that 1 extra guy is only a small multiplier, 90 against 100 is more noticeable as those extra 10 can erase a player every few seconds and snowball the advantage.

These are the reasons holding fights aren't supposed to be seen as big game changing things, they expect them to go back and forth a bit as scheduling and the conflict goes on. But it's also why a lot of us argue that settlement sieges can't be a simple endeavor, they need to be a build up to that big clash. Letting someone undo all that work cheaply and by winning via a single well scheduled weekend attack kinda sucks.
MidniteArrow
True, but that is just removing the ability to shift the allegiance of a holding.
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
Duffy Swiftshadow
MidniteArrow
True, but that is just removing the ability to shift the allegiance of a holding.

I do find it a little odd that a holding we owned outside my settlement can 'suddenly' switch allegiance to somewhere half way across the map because someone swapped sides…I would say that's borderline ridiculous. Not saying their shouldn't be some mechanism for handing assets off to someone else or taking them by force, just that it makes more sense if they're settlement assets in the first place and are traded away or captured.

Even then I'm really only talking about the current style of holdings falling under this settlement ownership idea. I imagine more personal company owned buildings that don't affect the settlement or other settlement members will exist and those following their companies make a lot more sense.
Mistwalker
I am seeing a lot of the attacker point of vue being discussed, but not a lot of the defender, besides being chastised for wanting to switch PvP window or settlement training level.

The attacker can change their settlement training level before declaring the feud - why shouldn't the defender bev able to change the settlement level after the feud has started?

A lot of folks have left the PvP window where it was for months, if not longer - when you get feuded, you suddenly take a look at when you and your allies are now on (not when you could be on regularly months ago, but now, in the coming days due to the feud). I have no real issue with the idea that the defender can change the PvP window once during the feud (not every day, moving it around).
Duffy Swiftshadow
Mistwalker
I am seeing a lot of the attacker point of vue being discussed, but not a lot of the defender, besides being chastised for wanting to switch PvP window or settlement training level.

The attacker can change their settlement training level before declaring the feud - why shouldn't the defender bev able to change the settlement level after the feud has started?

A lot of folks have left the PvP window where it was for months, if not longer - when you get feuded, you suddenly take a look at when you and your allies are now on (not when you could be on regularly months ago, but now, in the coming days due to the feud). I have no real issue with the idea that the defender can change the PvP window once during the feud (not every day, moving it around).

The window length is pretty exploitable right now and has very minor drawbacks to doing so, I think the long running intention is that lowering it probably won't be simple. That should be looked at and probably minimize how much variance can occur. I'm still a huge fan of maybe forcing PvP windows to overlap and lock when a feud/war is triggered to give everyone the best chances to go back and forth.

As for changing it to match your player-base, that's a complacency problem not a mechanical one. If it should have been changed leadership should have the foresight to reevaluate and change it from time to time. After a feud is too late, plans have been set in motion, resources expended, and suddenly the conflict is denied or pulled up short by moving a window with a few button presses. Even if it's for a good reason or oversight in a particular instance, the fact that it exists means it can be used to circumvent attacks. It might seem a bit harsh, but it's a due diligence aspect of leadership, if it's a problem someone isn't doing their job.

Their are some negative effects to moving it around mid conflict: it encourages continuous feuding with bigger battles centering around weekends when it's easier to manipulate schedules for most people which results in extraneous 'ganking' style conflict. It also creates animosity between opponents which tends to prolong the in-game conflicts.

I would prefer and I think many defenders would prefer if attacks were targeted and done one way or another versus ongoing due to lack of objectives being achieved. I would rather win the defense and get a reprieve than have to keep it up over and over again because my opponent is too annoyed to stop. Granted some other changes would need to be there for that to happen but removing window manipulations from the equation would help a lot.

Edit: Something that just occurred to me, if the line of thought that eventually numbers will negate the importance of PvP window manipulation, that kinda implies that the PvP windows don't really need to exist which means no restrictions on when attacks can come. I find that I dislike that idea.
Ravenlute
A week is far too long for a preset feud. A lot can happen in real life in a few days and anyone, attacker or defender, should be able to alter their pvp window to reflect that.
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Duffy Swiftshadow
Why is a week too long? Whats the limits to how much should be captured in a feud? Currently you need at least 2 successful days in a row, are we implying that after two days conflict should stop no matter what? Do we expect settlement sieges to be resolved in 2 days when those get added for real? The defender already has the advantage initially, moving the window around just gives them more of an advantage to manipulate or avoid the conflict.

As the game population grows reasons to change the window on the fly for scheduling should approach non-existant aside from 'whoops we forgot to adjust it when the Russians started outnumbering the rest of us'. That really only leaves the occasional non conflict initiated alteration or moving it to mess up attacks. The former is fine and should be a matter of leadership due diligence the latter is changing the playing field mid fight and is a problem.
Bringslite
Still all stuck on the Holdings. The capturing of the holdings(or at least attacking them) being really the only way to conduct a feud. This is where one of the major issues is.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Ravenlute
Bringslite
Still all stuck on the Holdings. The capturing of the holdings(or at least attacking them) being really the only way to conduct a feud. This is where one of the major issues is.

Agreed.
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Gross
Duffy Swiftshadow
MidniteArrow
True, but that is just removing the ability to shift the allegiance of a holding.

I do find it a little odd that a holding we owned outside my settlement can 'suddenly' switch allegiance to somewhere half way across the map because someone swapped sides…I would say that's borderline ridiculous. Not saying their shouldn't be some mechanism for handing assets off to someone else or taking them by force, just that it makes more sense if they're settlement assets in the first place and are traded away or captured.

Even then I'm really only talking about the current style of holdings falling under this settlement ownership idea. I imagine more personal company owned buildings that don't affect the settlement or other settlement members will exist and those following their companies make a lot more sense.

From both a RolePlay perspective generally and the (biased against alpha landowner in favor of active players) perspective of someone who will never own a settlement I think it fair that companies, which are the largest thing most non settlement owners can aspire to control and develop, get to own and control the fate of their holdings and outposts, essentially territory. And they should effect the settlement, just like real life in the Japanese age of war and the English war of the roses, if a lord changed sides (the equivalent of a company leadership in PFO) castles, towns, ports, revenues swung with them. If a settlement leadership loses support of a company the things built by that company using the influence generated by its members should be lost.

And from the same perspective I like it if things get shaken up and moved by a player quitting and someone else taking over their toons assets, brings the uncertainty of what happens with RL succession into things.
Mercenary monster hunter from Forgeholm
War priest of Angradd… patiently waiting on Goblinworks to deliver him (and greataxes, Dwarves need 2 handed axes).
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post