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.

Bringing Back Support

Bob
Both settlements and large territorial claims are built up over time, and we likewise want them to fall over time. The more dynamic back-and-forth battles should be taking place along borders, or in the less settled areas of the map where territorial claims are still being established.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Both settlements and large territorial claims are built up over time, and we likewise want them to fall over time. The more dynamic back-and-forth battles should be taking place along borders, or in the less settled areas of the map where territorial claims are still being established.
I for one am pretty happy with the idea of taking out a settlement being a super-major undertaking and difficult. It is too hard to build them up to lose them easily. MANY battles and some back and forth sounds pretty good.
If it proves beyond ridiculous to take one out, it can always be adjusted.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite of Staalgard
Bob
Both settlements and large territorial claims are built up over time, and we likewise want them to fall over time. The more dynamic back-and-forth battles should be taking place along borders, or in the less settled areas of the map where territorial claims are still being established.
I for one am pretty happy with the idea of taking out a settlement being a super-major undertaking and difficult. It is too hard to build them up to lose them easily. MANY battles and some back and forth sounds pretty good.
If it proves beyond ridiculous to take one out, it can always be adjusted.

I agree, I like the move itself and it's inline with some of the original design that was discussed.

However, the concept of actual battles occurring is unfortunately not particularly realistic as the mechanics stand today. Realistically if someone bigger by the minor margin of a few bodies wants it they will take it and that's the end of it unless you can turn the tables and become the bigger one. (Bigger here accounts for all the fuzzy politicking/allying/etc… in the moment whats brought to bear is what matters not how it got there) Your best case 'battle' is two sides flip flopping some territory ad nauseum as neither side manages to consistently outnumber the other.

I know I sound like a broken record but the fact that basic combat competency and minor majority numbers is enough to determine our territory battles without much concern for actual fighting is really disheartening for a multitude of reasons. I expect fighting over gushers to be 1000x more interesting than fights over holdings (assuming gushers dont end up working like holdings smile ).
Flari-Merchant
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite of Staalgard
Bob
Both settlements and large territorial claims are built up over time, and we likewise want them to fall over time. The more dynamic back-and-forth battles should be taking place along borders, or in the less settled areas of the map where territorial claims are still being established.
I for one am pretty happy with the idea of taking out a settlement being a super-major undertaking and difficult. It is too hard to build them up to lose them easily. MANY battles and some back and forth sounds pretty good.
If it proves beyond ridiculous to take one out, it can always be adjusted.

I agree, I like the move itself and it's inline with some of the original design that was discussed.

However, the concept of actual battles occurring is unfortunately not particularly realistic as the mechanics stand today. Realistically if someone bigger by the minor margin of a few bodies wants it they will take it and that's the end of it unless you can turn the tables and become the bigger one. (Bigger here accounts for all the fuzzy politicking/allying/etc… in the moment whats brought to bear is what matters not how it got there)

I know I sound like a broken record but the fact that basic combat competency and numbers is enough to determine our territory battles is really disheartening for a multitude of reasons.
I hear you, Duffy. I'm not sure that I have enuf PVP under my hat yet to agree that less than 1 to 1.5 in numbers is a forgone conclusion. I do believe that half again more than the other guy is enuf, tho.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite of Staalgard
I hear you, Duffy. I'm not sure that I have enuf PVP under my hat yet to agree that less than 1 to 1.5 in numbers is a forgone conclusion. I do believe that half again more than the other guy is enuf, tho.

I'm hesitant to put a hard number forth as there are some variables, but from our experience both attacking and defending when you have similar training/gear levels attacking with the same or less is pretty much impossible and will never result in capturing anything. You need to maintain positional control of the capture zone which requires some amount of your team to always be alive and standing in the capture zone. That only happens when you have enough numbers to always have more standing after a brawl (thus winning every brawl) and thus keep the counter going in your favor. If you keep swapping who is controlling the point every few exchanges you get into stalemate and the defender has to keep the chore up until the timer runs out allowing them to 'win'.

I think the root problem is that taking the control point back from the attacker doesn't just stop their progress, it undoes it. Allowing iterative progress that can't be erased until the window closes and better respawn mechanics combined with the new neighbor holding immunity mechanic could see a vast improvement to holding territory fights. The game still rewards bigger groups with an advantage for organizing but it can allow a straight up 'better' force to possibly make progress or outwit the larger group. Realistically a half way decent superior sized group will win almost all the time, but it should at least require continual strategic and combat competency to do so. Showing up and standing in one spot while you slam a few buttons should not be 'good enough'.
Bob
Midnight
Will feuds still allow 23/7 targeting of companies? Will feuds ignore the PvP limitations that holding owners set in each hex?

I'll start up a separate thread on the whole Opt-In PvP topic soon, but our initial thoughts are that feuds would always allow attacks. In a sense, you've opted-in to occasionally being feuded by joining a company.
Bob
In terms of the capture rules for taking holdings/outposts, we did talk about some potential changes to those, but they also didn't quite make the cut. If at some point we're able to pull that back in, then we can talk about the possibilities, but for now we want to avoid too many speculative discussions about changes we don't currently have a way to fit into our schedule.
Midnight
It is going to be odd to have a sworn enemy dedicated to wiping my settlement off the map, and to run into them and realize it's Tuesday so we have to ignore each other. But I'll have to wait and see what the PvP opt in is.

Players who don't opt in ought not be allowed to post about PvP or politics. only 1/2 smile
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Fiery
You don't need to ignore them - you are always free to choose more violent interactions. It just won't be without consequence.
Bob
Midnight
It is going to be odd to have a sworn enemy dedicated to wiping my settlement off the map, and to run into them and realize it's Tuesday so we have to ignore each other. But I'll have to wait and see what the PvP opt in is.

Players who don't opt in ought not be allowed to post about PvP or politics. only 1/2 smile

You can still kill each other on Tuesday, you just can't take each other's territory. Of course, if you can't do that, you may not want to bother feuding on Tuesday, but you certainly can. Also, if your PvP days don't overlap with your enemy's PvP days, you may still be able to trade territory every day but Tuesday (or whatever the 7th day is in your case), so that's still a lot of possible fighting if you choose to do so.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post