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.

Free Trial Program Ending

Bob
Hobson Fiffledown
Any thoughts about reversing the never-subbed trial accounts' effect on company influence caps? That would be a nice start to evening out some balance issues.

Many thoughts, but no conclusions or plans as of yet. It's clear we'll have to deal with this issue eventually, but any sudden changes could really cause problems for existing companies, so we want to proceed very carefully.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Bob
Hobson Fiffledown
Any thoughts about reversing the never-subbed trial accounts' effect on company influence caps? That would be a nice start to evening out some balance issues.

Many thoughts, but no conclusions or plans as of yet. It's clear we'll have to deal with this issue eventually, but any sudden changes could really cause problems for existing companies, so we want to proceed very carefully.

+1
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Wolf of Rathglen
Since this is now the company and Influence thread, OF COURSE Influence needs to be based on something else. Currently companies are incentivized by mechanical efficiency to be smaller while generating Influence but incentivized to be gigantic when they spend it feuding to take objectives that affect settlements not companies.

Companies need to be able to spend Influence on Company-level objectives like multiple production lines for members or making a hex free-pvp to defend their gusher (or take that escalation boss). Ohhhh, I see, there isn't anything actually in the game for companies to do so they got shoehorned into this awful fighting-over-settlement-stuff routine that catalyzed the imbalance issues we're talking about.
Hammerfall: Like a waterfall, but tougher.
Bringslite
Proxima Sin
Since this is now the company and Influence thread, OF COURSE Influence needs to be based on something else. Currently companies are incentivized by mechanical efficiency to be smaller while generating Influence but incentivized to be gigantic when they spend it feuding to take objectives that affect settlements not companies.

Companies need to be able to spend Influence on Company-level objectives like multiple production lines for members or making a hex free-pvp to defend their gusher (or take that escalation boss). Ohhhh, I see, there isn't anything actually in the game for companies to do so they got shoehorned into this awful fighting-over-settlement-stuff routine that catalyzed the imbalance issues we're talking about.

+1
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Midnight
We could always skip the pretenses and just make raising the influence cap cost cash. smile
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Edam
Midnight
We could always skip the pretenses and just make raising the influence cap cost cash. smile

The new regime means people will need to sub an account for at least one month before the three characters on that account raises the influence cap.

That is substantially less harsh then the suggestion made in previous threads that only currently training characters effect the influence cap.
Hobson Fiffledown
Edam
Midnight
We could always skip the pretenses and just make raising the influence cap cost cash. smile

The new regime means people will need to sub an account for at least one month before the three characters on that account raises the influence cap.

That is substantially less harsh then the suggestion made in previous threads that only currently training characters effect the influence cap.

But it still just makes the Inf cap game pay-to-win. Some players wouldn't think twice about locking down a settlement or maintaining a swath of holdings for a one time $300 payment. Maybe it would take a different state of the game for it to be a common concern though.

I'd like to see something like Effort for Holdings affect the influence system. Maybe a character needs to rack up one or two achievements in a month to avoid a slow (or not so slow) bleed on their influence cap contribution? That could take care of trial accounts, discarded accounts, and unsubbed accounts. Why should what's-his-name who played a year ago, and who no one can remember, provide an influence benefit to a company anyway?

(I mean, sure, I'd like to see an entirely different system…but we didn't even get the Sept 1st forum update on time…so, baby steps. Ooo, I wonder if they're saving it for today so it can be an anniversary announcement?)
This space for rent.
Midnight
Don't mistake my irony/humor for disagreement.

I want to see influence handled sensibly. When PvP active, I am among those players most influenced smile by influence.

All my characters are from accounts I bought from GW January 2015 when EE accounts still cost $100.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Paddy Fitzpatrick
@Hobson

That's not a "baby step" though. It is a band aid being placed on a mechanic that is fundamentally flawed in its current state and should not continue to exist. You make influence based on something else other than toon or player pop, then you won't have problems of people stuffing toons into companies anymore to increase it and this entire debate over whether non-subbed accounts should contribute becomes irrelevant. Sure some influence will still be lost but if done right it won't be as severe and in the long run it will be more stable and hopefully something still achievable.

Otherwise, you are punishing the remaining active players over inactive accounts from former players who thought this game either didn't have enough content yet (and may come back later) or left after that whole layoff announcement. So why should they be punished for something that is not their fault? I once had more people in Fianna myself who eventually left the game for similar reasons and only a few of us out of our original group remain. So because of their quite understandable decisions that I have no control over I should have my influence taken away? Why should I be punished due to issues that are not my fault?

As for those who stuff companies with lots of alts, should this be possible? No. Why is it possible? Well, cause the way Influence works right now is completely broken and inherently flawed and has made zero downsides to it and a lot more to gain. Why is it done by almost everyone? Again, out of necessity because the system is based off of toon population and you need lots of toons (not players, toons) if you want to accomplish anything meaningful at all. It's just yet another serious flaw of an inherently broken system that never should have been in the first place and it forces you to do ridiculous things like just just to stay active let alone competitive. I mean seriously Hobson, how many active players do you have in your company? Do you have nearly as many active players as you have toons, or are most of those toons throwaway toons used to pad up your companies?

You take baby steps by coming up with a new design for a new version of the influence system that is based on something else. Then you try a prototype out on say a test server and see how it goes. You make some iterative changes and then put up in an EE patch for testing. Then prior to release you do some recalculations for existing groups based on the new system and dish out some influence based on what each existing company should have under that new system and then go from there.

You DON'T take baby steps by making a "fix" that creates more problems than it solves and flatlines the whole server. You don't take baby steps by making an already terrible system even worse and going further down a failed path. You don't take baby steps by wasting valuable time and resources propping up a bad system, especially when it would take even more time to keep re-balancing said bad system instead of scrapping it and making a better one.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Also, it won't get better with a higher pop, it will only get worse. Sure having no free trial period will mitigate it by weeding out people who would just spam trial accounts, but then you will get groups who will just buy more accounts and then the influence system becomes P2W.

Let's say you get a 100 man group, each one gets three toons to stuff their company with and they now have an influence cap based on 300 toons. All these people gotta do is buy one more account each and $30 a month isn't exactly expensive. So now you got a 600 toon cap. Up it to $45 a month and you get 900 toons.

The inherently flaws in this entire system will still be there and the main difference is people just have to pay a bit more to take advantage of it. You're definitely gonna find groups who are willing to also shell out much larger sums to get an even bigger leg up, which is the essence of P2W since there will probably be more groups whose members won't shell out hundreds of dollars a month to stuff their companies with toons than there will be ones that do.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post