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

Edam
Eve does it by dividing the map and limiting the really OP stuff that needs a huge alliance to fund like cap ships to losec and nul sec.

Eve has ended up with strategic big batltes limited mainly to nul sec with scrappy small gang PvP mainly taking place in worm holes and losec while the more PvE focused "carebears" hang out in highsec. Peole that do not want to be part of a massive group tend to hangout in losec and go on small gang roams or start a wormhole corp. people wanting to mainly avoid PvP stick to highsec or go to the extra safe SOV areas in nulsec.

That sort of artificial division in the sandbox is something Ryan wanted to avoid but it may be worth reconsidering.
Flari-Merchant
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.
No, I don't want perpetual motion machines made of overwhelming numbers. There have been some interesting ideas that do take less coding than rebuilding or removing Epow and Epro though. I don't much like the concept because it leaves weird gaps between armor, weapons and spells and how a player manages T2 or T3… let's say armor and the ability to get realistic buffing/debuffing or healing/damage utilities/expendables. It does not work well with how characters progress.

Problem is though, it is REALLY tied up into how a lot of things work in combat mechanics and how they are already built.

I am not really a big fan of nerfing groups that manage to pull more players together than others, either. Nor am I a devotee of "it's purely ALL about numbers of attackers". We seem to be falling back into the same old way of discussing "fixing" things with complicated new mechanics. It just highlights that there really are a ton of balancing issues to be worked on.

BUT, if they are unable to fix most of those things right now, maybe a few drastic things(which are very serious non viable systems) to change up how/what they have built is a better way to look at things.
Edam
I actually like EPRO EPOW but think it may need toning down and definitely should be far weaker against beneficial effects than offensive ones.

The concept is good it is just the implementation was a bit of a blunt instrument and no effort has ever been made to fine tune it.

I am aware consideration is being given to scrapping the whole system but that is actually throwing out the baby with the bath water when it could be tuned to work the way it was originally intended. Among other things scrapping EPRO/EPOW would remove any purpose other than vanity for slotting any of the wearable items and make several crafter types close to redundant.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Maybe I am missing something…

So my understanding was epow/epro was in there in addition to the keywords. I also thought that one major keyword had already been worth something like four minor keywords anyway before factoring epow and epro.

So if that is the case, shouldn't the keyword differences be enough before adding epow and epro?

If I am wrong, then maybe I need a refresher on how it fits together.
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
You are a Troll
I have never had a problem with the epow/epro system; it has always worked just fine/as intended for me. If you want beneficial effects to work when you are wearing T3 armor, then get some T3 buffs slotted. Meaningful choices - suck it up.
Decius
The only effevtive ways to prevent numbers from having an effect are to limit the number of participants directly (by making the battles limited-participation), or indirectly by having some kind of sliding scale cost for having more participants.

Changing to areana battles for sieges isn't reasonable. Maybe there's a reasonable direct limit, but I haven't seen one.

A suitable limit to force projection is time-distance. Each character is at only one place at any one time, and moving between those places is expensive in that it takes player time. By the time a group bigbenoigh to routinely throw its weight around the entire EE map forms, we will have enough players to open up the OE map, giving them about twice the distance and four times the area to try to hold.

A large blob with a large territory cannot hold it from all directions all the time; even in the current map, if one group tried to hold territory in all four corners it would be unable to prevent a force one-quarter of its size or smaller from taking one of the corners. The attackers know where they intend to attack and can be strong only there; the defenders need only be strong where a serious attack occurs, but they have no way of knowing where that might be. If they gather centrally and respond only to attacks, then a widespread probing attack leaves them swatting at mosquitoes with a hammer. If the defender splits up and defends a wide front evenly, they might deal with small attacks that testbthendefense, but when a solid strike forms at one point the distrivuted characters will not be able to arrive in time to make a difference; and as sooon as they march to the sound of the distant battle, local opportunists can attack other edges, forcing at least a small number to remain-unless the initial attack was the russ, and everyone needs to travel to the location that hasn't been touched in the first ten minutes.

Even is extreme cases, the smaller groups can invest an amount of time on a few characters to force a much larger and time-sensitive response from many more. Exhausting the blob can mean causing them to show up repeatedly and have nothing to do, which will make them not a blob.

It's not a programming solution, because the "problem" that more people working together are more effective isn't a programming problem.
Edam
True, though to some extent multiple accounts reduces the effectiveness of force projection as a limitation.

Players with multiple PvP capable alts can distribute them around the map and simply jump from one character to the next.

The real issue here is simply this - in a sandbox MMO you do not get the Hollywood style "lone determined hero saving the world" thing you that see all the time in single player quested games, or for that matter even the Pathfinder TT style "party of 6 taking on the unwashed hordes". It cannot work that way.
Flari-Merchant
You are a Troll
I have never had a problem with the epow/epro system; it has always worked just fine/as intended for me. If you want beneficial effects to work when you are wearing T3 armor, then get some T3 buffs slotted. Meaningful choices - suck it up.
It may or may not be a problem, depending on how each person typically develops their character in a given game. This game is largely player choice. It is far easier to get yourself into T3 armor than it is to get your better expendables there at nearly the same time. This creates a gap. It is all down to how WE choose to spend xp, but it is unbalanced because of human nature in skilling up. The average player does not think that way. they expect the building to flow fairly equally across all areas of progression.

It is not normal that once I qualify for +3 T2 armor, I also am one cheap(relatively) feat from +3 T3 armor.
Flari-Merchant
The worrying about Blobs and about conflicts being largely about superior numbers is kinda going down a rabbit hole instead of facing the real issues. Though there probably are some issues that are needing tweaks or work there.

One of the REAL ISSUES is why would a group abandon a perfectly good Holding rather than fight for it? Why is a Holding so without value? That is partly what Bob and GW are trying to address with siege mechanics, IMO.
Flari-Merchant
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Maybe I am missing something…

So my understanding was epow/epro was in there in addition to the keywords. I also thought that one major keyword had already been worth something like four minor keywords anyway before factoring epow and epro.

So if that is the case, shouldn't the keyword differences be enough before adding epow and epro?

If I am wrong, then maybe I need a refresher on how it fits together.
One of the main problems, IMO with striping out Epow and epro that I can see: HoTs and DoTs and buffs/debuffs are built to affect things in percentages of either total or remaining(current) values. Take away the 'E" and suddenly your T1 "spells" are much more effective. There is an iota of balance built into the system that would be set wonky.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post