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

The Eternal Balance
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 the 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.

We agree. Settlement owners weild way too much power and seemingly control and manipulate most (all?) of the companies attached to their settlement. Individual companies should have more clout in the game and having them take their holdings with them should they choose to change settlements seems much more fair, Balanced and interesting.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Duffy Swiftshadow
That's the thing though, it's not treated as an individual company's asset, it's seen as the settlement's. The settlement needs the asset, the settlement defends the asset, the companies only need them for their settlement. A company is just a part of the settlement that is mechanically required to own assets, but it creates all kinds of weird corner cases by doing so.

When we get 10,000+ players the organized groups will insure every holding they need is under a single or carefully controlled set of companies. And they'll easily be able to afford too because their is a limited number of hexes and the only restriction on influence is characters in the game. Their will be plenty of influence laying around to do w/e is needed over time.

Ultimately it's not taking anything away from a company, what does the company lose by losing a holding? Some influence and raw resources that were supplying their settlement? Eventually DI that was for the settlement? The settlement is gonna be more upset then them! And it's ultimately the settlement's fault for not protecting it's asset. Worse case I the company could lose a niche trainer or facility their settlement didn't cover, but the existing plans we know about have a few ways to get access to those things anyways.

I just don't see the need or desire to focus holdings at the company level, it seems to cause more problems than benefits. And any mechanical gap or oddity regarding them is gonna get stomped all over by groups taking advantage of it until it simply becomes the de facto way to play.
Bringslite
The Eternal Balance
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 the 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.

We agree. Settlement owners weild way too much power and seemingly control and manipulate most (all?) of the companies attached to their settlement. Individual companies should have more clout in the game and having them take their holdings with them should they choose to change settlements seems much more fair, Balanced and interesting.
Holdings are the possession of the company that places them. No matter where the company goes, those holdings belong to them unless self torn down, decayed, or taken away.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
Duffy Swiftshadow
That's the thing though, it's not treated as an individual company's asset, it's seen as the settlement's. The settlement needs the asset, the settlement defends the asset, the companies only need them for their settlement. A company is just a part of the settlement that is mechanically required to own assets, but it creates all kinds of weird corner cases by doing so.

When we get 10,000+ players the organized groups will insure every holding they need is under a single or carefully controlled set of companies. And they'll easily be able to afford too because their is a limited number of hexes and the only restriction on influence is characters in the game. Their will be plenty of influence laying around to do w/e is needed over time.

Ultimately it's not taking anything away from a company, what does the company lose by losing a holding? Some influence and raw resources that were supplying their settlement? Eventually DI that was for the settlement? The settlement is gonna be more upset then them! And it's ultimately the settlement's fault for not protecting it's asset. Worse case I the company could lose a niche trainer or facility their settlement didn't cover, but the existing plans we know about have a few ways to get access to those things anyways.

I just don't see the need or desire to focus holdings at the company level, it seems to cause more problems than benefits. And any mechanical gap or oddity regarding them is gonna get stomped all over by groups taking advantage of it until it simply becomes the de facto way to play.

That is all sensible. Why have companies at all? Settlements will still want groups of players for tax revenue and defense or aggression. Their gatherers, refiners, and crafters. What though makes one company any different to all others? The number of holdings it can manage are important right now but that is so(itself) managed by the settlement that it is moot.
What are some things that would make companies individual, attractive to specific types of players, and still even as (or more) attractive to get bannered to your settlement?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
Look back to the old blogs. It's all there, with a small leap or two. smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
Making companies about themselves and their preferred avenues of play and their preferred factions will create a far better company based game than forcing them to be the primary asset ownership mechanism for settlements. Especially if the contracting systems are based mainly around personal or companies accepting them. By being that asset holder they encourage stricter control. I would also expect that more buildings specific to faction and company use would be available that do not benefit the settlements. Their is plenty of room in hexes for more buildings that aren't holdings producing bulk.
Midnight
Duffy Swiftshadow
MidniteArrow
Settlement-level feuding won't fix it, you can just switch settlements. It needs to be nation level.

Ultimately the real fix is penalties or delays for shifting allegiances.

It will if the assets you're attacking belong to the settlement not the players/companies. If someone bails to let you capture something or to avoid you randomly ganking them so be it, they are basically conceding you the victory. Hopping is only a problem if it can be used to hide or move the targeted assets around.

This totally ignores that an attacker may be paying for a feud to interdict players (especially during an event). Many feuds are launched with almost no care about the enemy's holdings.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Wolf of Rathglen
I think the thread has arrived where I've been since Foreverwar. Hex ownership and bulk resources are settlement level resources while feuding is only a company level mechanic, and mixing across those two levels of the game is the root cause of ALL these troubles.

Companies incentivized to be smaller for Influence efficiency but incentivized to be gigantic to capture/defend for their settlement, no settlement is going to lose a hex and resources because a single company couldn't defend it so you get rampant company hopping which completely bypasses the balancing role if Influence, etc.

How did the software get here? If we're being honest, this was the thing rushed out the door to give the vocal players something to pvp over, even though it doesn't harmonize with any of the other systems for settlement management and conflict or Influence economics and causes many more problems than the one it solved.

How do we get this mess cleaned up adding to the rest of the game experience? That's a whole other thread but no matter the specifics it will require more coding, it was just plain put on the live server before it was ready.
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
Decius
What can we do to make bulk resources (and thus outposts) more of a company-level commodity?
Bringslite
Midnight
Duffy Swiftshadow
MidniteArrow
Settlement-level feuding won't fix it, you can just switch settlements. It needs to be nation level.

Ultimately the real fix is penalties or delays for shifting allegiances.

It will if the assets you're attacking belong to the settlement not the players/companies. If someone bails to let you capture something or to avoid you randomly ganking them so be it, they are basically conceding you the victory. Hopping is only a problem if it can be used to hide or move the targeted assets around.

This totally ignores that an attacker may be paying for a feud to interdict players (especially during an event). Many feuds are launched with almost no care about the enemy's holdings.

Delete plz. The poster could be referring to any manner of things.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post