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

Bringslite
Let's not get too hasty. There is room for the feudal relationship between settlements and companies. Companies do have the characters in them that were supposed to add the skill that ran the holdings. There may be a better way to handle the way that feuds are conducted that doesn't require the entire system be scrapped.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
Decius
What can we do to make bulk resources (and thus outposts) more of a company-level commodity?

The settlement would need to be non-dependent on them and I can't come up with anything for that short of abolishing the system as is and making all the upkeep systems for settlements internal to the settlement buildings. You can make bulk resources more of a bonus than a requirement they need to balance out, but even that makes me feel like it will be seen as 'required' and still get treated as a settlement asset.

Bringslite
Let's not get too hasty. There is room for the feudal relationship between settlements and companies. Companies do have the characters in them that were supposed to add the skill that ran the holdings. There may be a better way to handle the way that feuds are conducted that doesn't require the entire system be scrapped.

I don't think companies or even feuding needs to get scrapped, just re-calibrated to get rid of some boring/bad behavior patterns the current mechanics cause. I was always under the impression that feuding companies shouldn't really be drawing the attention of their settlements most of the time, but in our current case it's obviously of importance. But to do that they need to move capturing 'settlement' assets from the feud.

My company is about being assassins, I expect it to be small well controlled group, but mechanically I'm not encouraged to do that. I'm encourage to grow to a certain size and carefully control critical assets for my settlement. I would rather be focused on sending people to the companies they thematically align with or creating their own. It's never mechanically in our best interest to take a new 8 man company of friends if we have a non-soft capped company with room open. It's also not as fun for them because they must grow to do anything of significance which may not fit their company image. I personally know at least two groups of around 15-20 players that quit because of this.

Companies belonging to a settlement is still a feudal relationship, you need them to bring in the more general resources, do the crafting, keep the market going, fight when you need to attack/defend, pay enough taxes to upkeep your settlement, focus on w/e other activity you specialize in, etc… Keeping them happy and attached to the settlement is a big deal and it will be regardless of holdings, but holdings and the current feud mechanics erode that company identity. I want to see companies matter, but on their personal level and as an asset themselves, not because they are the only way to own an important mechanic.
Bringslite
Duffy Swiftshadow
Decius
What can we do to make bulk resources (and thus outposts) more of a company-level commodity?

The settlement would need to be non-dependent on them and I can't come up with anything for that short of abolishing the system as is and making all the upkeep systems for settlements internal to the settlement buildings. You can make bulk resources more of a bonus than a requirement they need to balance out, but even that makes me feel like it will be seen as 'required' and still get treated as a settlement asset.

Bringslite
Let's not get too hasty. There is room for the feudal relationship between settlements and companies. Companies do have the characters in them that were supposed to add the skill that ran the holdings. There may be a better way to handle the way that feuds are conducted that doesn't require the entire system be scrapped.

I don't think companies or even feuding needs to get scrapped, just re-calibrated to get rid of some boring/bad behavior patterns the current mechanics cause. I was always under the impression that feuding companies shouldn't really be drawing the attention of their settlements most of the time, but in our current case it's obviously of importance. But to do that they need to move capturing 'settlement' assets from the feud.

My company is about being assassins, I expect it to be small well controlled group, but mechanically I'm not encouraged to do that. I'm encourage to grow to a certain size and carefully control critical assets for my settlement. I would rather be focused on sending people to the companies they thematically align with or creating their own. It's never mechanically in our best interest to take a new 8 man company of friends if we have a non-soft capped company with room open. It's also not as fun for them because they must grow to do anything of significance which may not fit their company image. I personally know at least two groups of around 15-20 players that quit because of this.

Companies belonging to a settlement is still a feudal relationship, you need them to bring in the more general resources, do the crafting, keep the market going, fight when you need to attack/defend, pay enough taxes to upkeep your settlement, focus on w/e other activity you specialize in, etc… Keeping them happy and attached to the settlement is a big deal and it will be regardless of holdings, but holdings and the current feud mechanics erode that company identity. I want to see companies matter, but on their personal level and as an asset themselves, not because they are the only way to own an important mechanic.

I agree with all of this! AS you pointed out, by design(intentional or not) there are going to be FAR MORE companies than there will ever be useable Holding worthy hexes and with that comes an infinitely possible amount of influence that there is no way to use yet.

Companies should be and could be all about specialization if that is what they crave. I would propose(yeah this would take some coding) that companies be directly BETTER at what they specialize in at some proportion to how specifically they do specialize in it and how much of their Influence they allocate (or spend) on it. Look at the old blogs:
*There were speculatively supposed to be limits to how much queue time was available in a given crafting station.
*There were supposed to be limits to how much training might be available at a given training building.
*There were/are supposed to be "Units" trained and ready to fight in formation style battle.
*There is room to adjust not only how many slots in a particular AH a single character could use at once, but how many total are available.
*EFFORT from assigned characters was/is supposed to have a factor in how much a Holding produced.

All of that above, and much more, could be implemented and limited. Scarcity(of all kinds of things) and player company "abilities" to lessen those things through their specialized focus, is certainly one avenue that can make companies unique and highly desired. Don't stop there. Why can't crafting companies spend influence to gain some small speed boosts? Why can't trading companies evade some small part of foreign AH taxes with influence? Why can't highly specialized "military formation" companies have some extra small advantages on the field. There is really endless room to impose "scarcity" and reward for specialization.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
On feuds and Holdings and PVP windows: The Land and the holdings should be the sovereign province of the settlements. Like any "power", the settlement can grant the keeping of that land and it's Holdings to a company for the ultimate benefit of the settlement. Feuds should have no part in holding destruction, if for no other reason than such things will(and absolutely should) attract the ire of the real owner: The Settlement.

Feuds are about fighting between lower levels of organized gangs, families, corps, etc… If they are NOT about holding capture, they need not involve PVP windows at all. They need not be limited to a day or two days at all either. Feuds really should be started because I hate Bart Montague and I will need some days to find and kill him. I do think that they should cost something regardless of that. Totally free PVP should be the province of the upcoming factions, as planned.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite
On feuds and Holdings and PVP windows: The Land and the holdings should be the sovereign province of the settlements. Like any "power", the settlement can grant the keeping of that land and it's Holdings to a company for the ultimate benefit of the settlement. Feuds should have no part in holding destruction, if for no other reason than such things will(and absolutely should) attract the ire of the real owner: The Settlement.

Feuds are about fighting between lower levels of organized gangs, families, corps, etc… If they are NOT about holding capture, they need not involve PVP windows at all. They need not be limited to a day or two days at all either. Feuds really should be started because I hate Bart Montague and I will need some days to find and kill him. I do think that they should cost something regardless of that. Totally free PVP should be the province of the upcoming factions, as planned.

+1

What I foresee and fear happening is that once their's a proliferation of companies and excess influence all settlement holdings will end up under control of a few specifically designed 'holding companies' with limited leadership control tied to the settlement. Because that's what I would do to avoid the risks, and in a huge and crowded game it will be trivial to get the bodies to go along with it if you have any sort of population. Once again concentrating security and power in the hands of the biggest settlements while small new settlements have to struggle to maintain their resources and localized reach by balancing their smaller collection of companies.

Course if enough were to flee those holding companies it would be a problem just like a company swapping sides, but at least that way no one is getting holdings for free from the exodus. Enemies would still need to come and get them before settlement leadership trashes them to avoid capture or lack of influence removes them.
MidniteArrow
I wish you guys would discuss this on twitter.
Drakis [Arrodima] [Default Speaker] [PvE Soldier, Empyrean Legion ]
Nijah [Arrodima] [Leader, The Argent Defenders, PvE]
Jinh [Arrodima] [Leader, The Concordian Council]
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post