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

Flari-Merchant
You can't have everything guys. You can't have a shallow power differential curve and then have numbers not make a big difference. Welcome Blob Power or another way to say it, power through numbers. Law of The Jungle.

At other times we are saying that it is impossible to beat groups in T3 gear.

Problem: Everything is bloated and inflated beyond reason by dead accounts tipping the influence scales for the "larger" groups in the game.
Problem: Holding take-over system is a bit boring and what Holdings produce is pretty much of low to no value.
Problem: The Influence System itself needs a real looking at as well… It does not work OR scale smoothly.
Problem: GW has been unwilling to deal with ANY of these things for some time whether because they are too complex to handle with a tiny crew, they are unable to, they do not want to make changes while prospective investors are looking at the game, they do not want to "rock our boat" too much…
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Duffy Swiftshadow
While you can't have everything, it can be mitigated via opportunity cost style mechanics.

For example: If respawning was different such that attacking far from home meant you had to setup a spawn point that could be destroyed near your target or your respawn was back in some area you control it takes some of the edge off the blob, giving more buffer room before a blob is all encompassing.

Or hypothetically if a single battle was somehow size limited a blob would still have more options and reach than a smaller group without necessarily being able to bring the full weight of the blob on one particular battle.

Lots of things can be solved, the question is what sort of experience do they want to make. Practically speaking certain numbers of people will break the game (server wise, there is no magic solution to this sort of thing) anyways, does that make those numbers desirable or good? Should that be limited or mitigated to avoid the game breaking? Lots of questions and possible answers can be used to craft the desired experience.
Midnight
@Bringslite

Numbers are going to matter, no doubt about it.

But introducing success/progress mechanics will only make it worse. If GW doesn't have the staff to mitigate the existing problems with the blob, the least they can do is avoid making the blob even harder to overcome, which is what requiring "progress" in feuds to renew feuds would do.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Flari-Merchant
Again guys, none of that matters(just for feuds and blob problems) unless and until those 4 problems are dealt with somehow. Perhaps one or a cpl solved will make the others go away, but we certainly don't need to be too concerned about "success progression" problems or much about PVP in general until some things get balanced.
I am not suggesting that any of your ideas are bad. Just suggesting that LOTS of stuff is bad/inadequate/unbalanced/under developed and it stems from a few major issues.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Edam
In the end its a matter of the right balance.

Massive alliances should not be immune to all threat. The current situation that allows relatively inactive large groups to be claiming huge areas that they cannot effectively manage or utilise as territory (all the major alliances currently are guilty of this) without threat of repercussion is not good.

But at the same a tiny handful of active players should not be capable of totally disrupting the normal day to day operations of a much larger group the way perma-feuding can.

I am actually interested to see how it all pans out.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
The problem is the only way to fight is by blobbing, there are few other ways to fight.

A strong elite army shouldn't be invincible either but that or clever tactics/creative use of combat and utility skills should provide additional force multipliers to just making it a boring game of raw numbers. It is all about having multiple layers of counter measures.

As far as the fears here go, worried about perma feuds? Set a feud cool down time or something. Make it equal to the amount of time of the initial feud of you want. That way you only have to step in and GM edge cases like a settlement constantly making new companies to chain feud indefinitely (if someone has no life in order to pull that off). There ya go, problem solved.

On the other extreme, the problem with blob issues is there is no way to stop a blob and the kinds of force multipliers and skills needed (traps, utility spells, ability to do formations like shield walls for example, , etc.) require more resources than the game currently has. There ain't enough stuff and ain't enough tactical options (though some of us have tried to work around the limitations with varying degrees of success),

There may be things that can be done like adjusting epow vs epro so stuff like crowd control and other tactics can be effective at all levels (and thus a more coordinated team with good synergies can shine and be a much greater threat to a blob of average warriors).

See, the problem isn't just with blobs, but the fact that the number of additional people needed to create a completely overhwleming source is way too small. Seriously when three or four people can make a difference just by merely showing up and just doing something that is a serious problem. That ratio isn't gonna get any better if there were more folks.

So yeah, either rebalance this epow vs epro things or jettison it and balance the strength of major and minor keywords.
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
Flari-Merchant
I doubt that major mechanical fixes like Epow and Epro or even enforceable participant numbers for feuds are viable possibilities at this point.

Craftable Res shrines(for aggressors) that could be destroyed(by defenders) is an interesting idea. Lots of interesting things can happen when there is much further to run to get back to a fight. I am reasonably sure that the team could remove excess shrines from the map. Shrine Holdings could be used, as they are or a bit ingredient modified, but I have my doubts that the team would be willing to invest the time needed to modify them to be Resurrection Shrines.

If I had any power to make the tough calls, I would do something along these lines(just in the area of PVP. many aspects of play need some luv too):

We all just need to bite the bullet and call for a script to run that separates inactive accounts from Chartered Companies. That would be a Hell Mess but a good thing in the end. True and Realistic Balance needs to be returned to the game. I am unsure that GW would be willing to do something like that however. Yet if GW still wants to save this game AND avoid a complete wipe, I can't think of a better time than now to do the rough things that need to be done. One thing that I find odd: we will soonish have to have an active character in charge of a settlement but the company influence that he can play with could be from 50+ dead accounts…

For now, remove Influence from the damn Feud System. Leave it for the cost of Holdings. How hard would it be to allow every active account player to be in a 2nd "Settlement Company"? A company that is just for offensive and defensive PVP. A company that has a "Perma Feud" with every other "Settlement War Company" in the game. No rep loss for fighting these guys. Maybe "War Companies" are separate companies that have NO settlement so that Allies can all be together in one?

Use your creativity to get some damn reward into PVP! Player characters do have some form of a "loot table", do they not? How about making some kind of "PVP Kill Chit: Bringslite" item that is looted every time I am killed? To be in the "War Company" mentioned above, I have to have a certain amount of "ransom" or loot set aside that can be somehow collected when these chits are turned in somewhere. Or maybe if enough are turned in to a GM I get booted from the "War Company" until I pay a ransom…

I am sure that all of this is problematic beyond my comprehension, yet I can't seem to help myself from trying to figure out how to do some things that MIGHT make this game a bit fun again. So much unrealized potential just dying off slowly. Makes me sad.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
You are a Troll
Bringslite of Staalgard
yet I can't seem to help myself from trying to figure out how to do some things that MIGHT make this game a bit fun again. So much unrealized potential just dying off slowly. Makes me sad.

Amen brother, amen.

Siege warfare is CERTAINLY not the answer, not with the myriad problems with game-play and mechanics that need to be addressed first. There have been lots of great ideas thrown out there by people on these forums in the last few weeks but apparently the decision has already been made and GW will not waver from it. That's what makes me sad.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
I am pretty sure there must be other reasons for doing the siege thing and I am guessing they have to do with marketing or funding conditions rather than whether this is the best gameplay choice right now.

As for these other proposals, for PvP I don't need a special shiny just for making a kill (though collecting heads to put on sticks could be fun). What you want is a good fight with sound mechanics that has something at stake. The thrill of the fight is it's own reward IF AND ONLY If the mechanics are fun in of themselves. A special shiny will not change the severely limited ability to use creative team tactics or to improve individual skill to where one team can be slightly outnumbered and still have a decent chance of winning say a holding capture or siege as the slightly larger group. It won't change the fact that most people feel there is no point of fighting if the other side has even a slight numbers advantage and thus will not do so unless something important is at stake. Hate to say it but until sieges come in there is nothing important enough that an enemy can hold over us and thus no one can force us to care. Sadly at least sieges change that yes it is still the wrong way to do it I think but still, at least towns are theoretically mortal again.

A special shiny in PvP won't change the fact that for getting the recipes for sieges we have to do one of the most boring PvE grinds in any MMO I have seen. It is not even a job, cause at least at a job I get paid to do it, here I am paying $15 a month for a PvE chore/ritual that is rarely entertaining enough to hold my attention and the only thing making it bearable is playing it with friends in my alliance (and folks outside of it too of course). The loot is still out of whack too and none of the proposed ideas of flattening company influence is gonna fix that right now either. It also won't fix the fact that the influence system as it is now should not be population based in the first place. Max influence should be determined by something the company or settlement actually does (like building a settlement for instance).

The biggest problem of all is none of the real problems are gonna get fixed unless the game gets funded, period. The hope seems to be that even at the eleventh hour this siege thing could be a key component for securing more funding. Or maybe it isn't, we don't know. What we DO know is nothing will get fixed without funding and whatever that solution may be that is completely outside of player control.
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
Bringslite of Staalgard
You can't have everything guys. You can't have a shallow power differential curve and then have numbers not make a big difference. Welcome Blob Power or another way to say it, power through numbers. Law of The Jungle.

Are you SURE you really want this? I am asking cause then you will see a lot more permanent feuding tactics, other unscrupulous acts done just to troll or wear people out, attrition via toxicity, and griefing people out of the game, and no holds barred ganking being normalized behavior.

If you truly want that ultra no holds beatdown dog eat dog kind of game then so be it but don't use that as an excuse for people to embrace and normalize blob behavior. It will apply to a lot more than that. If all the real complaints and issues concerning limited (if any) ways to counter even a slight numbers advantage are only going to be met with a "Man Up!" Response, then you can bet people who complain about all the other stuff mentioned above and in previous posts will also be dismissed with that same "Man Up!" Response.
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