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.

Settlement Warfare is on the March

Bob
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Not to mention a bunch of groups splitting the cost six ways makes it six times harder for the defenders to win by attrition than the attackers assuming even odds otherwise.

For everything I can think of offhand except influence, it would always be possible for multiple groups to share the cost by simply "donating to the cause."

For influence, company/settlement-hopping would get around a lot of the influence issues in a not-so-desirable way, but admittedly makes it a bit harder to pull together the needed influence. On the other hand, multiple companies doing the attacks means multiple companies need to feud the targeted settlement, so there are added influence costs for doing things that way.

Mostly, this change means that multiple companies/settlements can participate openly, as themselves, instead of gaming the system. I'm sure there are some cases where groups that couldn't quite have gamed the system will be able to coordinate an attack this way, but I don't think this will be a huge swing toward giving power to larger groups.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bob
Mostly, this change means that multiple companies/settlements can participate openly, as themselves, instead of gaming the system. I'm sure there are some cases where groups that couldn't quite have gamed the system will be able to coordinate an attack this way, but I don't think this will be a huge swing toward giving power to larger groups.

That's a huge deal. With that I can use as many companies as possible to get the needed X total influence without having to transfer companies between settlements and experiencing screwy and annoying things like losing bank access and messing with PvP windows. I would have thought in the future such repercussions would be even more severe or it would be mostly impossible for most due to things like Alignment and Factions. Since everyone is wielding far more influence than they have players this makes it way easier to use those dead or AFK accounts boosting influence caps to impact other players. Increasing the number of feuds in a multi company attack is not really a cost, it's trivial to feud forever.
Bob
Gamerson
Where will the siege recipes come from? Must we get them from mob drops? Will they be Engineer or Seneschal recipes and what kind of raw materials and/or refined materials will be required to build them? Will they be available as +1 through +3 with the possibility of getting +4 or +5s on lucky rolls? How much influence will it take to deploy them? Thank you.

The recipes are set up as standard T2/T3 recipe drops from mobs, and are for Engineers. I'll try to post the actual recipes tomorrow, but the general answer is that they use existing T2/T3 refined materials that are somewhat similar to the T1 refined materials used for holdings and outposts. Since they're crafting recipes, the + value is dependent on the refined materials included plus your Engineer bonus.

I'll also try to post the influence requirements tomorrow, but again, they're similar to the requirements for holdings and outposts, with the T3 versions having higher requirements.
Bob
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bob
Mostly, this change means that multiple companies/settlements can participate openly, as themselves, instead of gaming the system. I'm sure there are some cases where groups that couldn't quite have gamed the system will be able to coordinate an attack this way, but I don't think this will be a huge swing toward giving power to larger groups.

That's a huge deal. With that I can use as many companies as possible to get the needed X total influence without having to transfer companies between settlements and experiencing screwy and annoying things like losing bank access and messing with PvP windows. I would have thought in the future such repercussions would be even more severe or it would be mostly impossible for most due to things like Alignment and Factions. Since everyone is wielding far more influence than they have players this makes it way easier to use those dead or AFK accounts boosting influence caps to impact other players. Increasing the number of feuds in a multi company attack is not really a cost, it's trivial to feud forever.

It is true that we've been planning to discourage companies from hopping between settlements, though another way to think of it is that we largely just wanted to reduce the incentives to hop between settlements in the first place. Overall, we wanted to improve the abilities of allies to work together.


Fiery
I see no issue with the idea that multiple settlements can gang up on one city to siege it. That in fact seems absolutely normal.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Fiery
I see no issue with the idea that multiple settlements can gang up on one city to siege it. That in fact seems absolutely normal.

Not a problem with the inherent concept, it's a problem because influence is broken and easily abusable as method of victory via scheduling attrition. Limiting something like sieges to single companies curbed some of the issue by focusing the conflict around the influence of that attacking company, but now anyone can use their vast store of influence for anybody's benefit. Exacerbating the existing feud problems.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Fiery
I see no issue with the idea that multiple settlements can gang up on one city to siege it. That in fact seems absolutely normal.

Sooo… we are OK with blatant game imbalances that can horribly backfire???

I am confused. I figured my settlement is gonna be on the chopping block anyway but I would like to go out in an honorable fight to the death rather than horribly broken mechanics.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Fiery
If you consider the ability of multiple settlements/organizations joining to siege a single city to be a blatant game imbalance that can horribly backfire, then yea, I'm OK with that. Bob is absolutely correct that even in our current state, that can be achieved, it's just a little more annoying - not nearly to the level that any groups interested in such teaming up would reconsider doing so because of it. I agree with Duffy that the ability to infinitely feud pretty easily is an issue, and it seems to me that we could think of a relatively easy-to-implement solution. That solution could be as simple as a bob-policy to not feud longer than, say, a week, with a week off, or something.
Flari-Merchant
Fiery
If you consider the ability of multiple settlements/organizations joining to siege a single city to be a blatant game imbalance that can horribly backfire, then yea, I'm OK with that. Bob is absolutely correct that even in our current state, that can be achieved, it's just a little more annoying - not nearly to the level that any groups interested in such teaming up would reconsider doing so because of it. I agree with Duffy that the ability to infinitely feud pretty easily is an issue, and it seems to me that we could think of a relatively easy-to-implement solution. That solution could be as simple as a bob-policy to not feud longer than, say, a week, with a week off, or something.
That is nicely constructive. I like it. Not sure that it would work that way in a large pop game, but we are all pretty cool here in this one.

@ Bob
What do you say to considering some hot fixes along those lines, Sir Bob? On the gang-up siege thing, have you considered the possibility(as mentioned above) of 6 different PVP windows that defenders would need to juggle during a siege? Or about the fact that defenders would only have the option of attacking one siege camp during each? Pretty easy for a partnership/alliance to defend(with 6 groups to draw from) their siege camps. Sorry if you addressed this. I am working on little sleep this week. smile
P.S. And I know that with how things are currently, that we could do something similar with workarounds anyhoo, but it still seems a terrible advantage.
Flari-Merchant
Come to think of it…. No we couldn't exactly do the same, "six window special", with workarounds. At least as far as actual Sieges are concerned, IF a settlement could only be sieged by ONE settlement at a time.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post