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.

High sec hexes being low sec during PvP window?

Paddy Fitzpatrick
Fiery wind
You underestimate how many we had dedicated to killing guards: it was literally a full party that was told to ignore pvp. I was one of that party and sometimes jumped into pvp when the fight wasn't going quite as well as I wanted, but for the most part was killing guards. That is a lot of manpower to dedicate to guards. I did come up with strategies for pulling guards for picking people off, but we never needed to do that because the chosen strategy worked so well, and the ai changes wold only make a direct assault more difficult. Your side's response to my strategy was poor and ineffectual - with better direction, it would have been possible to break my "blockade" of the holding and get people into the holding area proper, making things a lot more challenging.

While there is no doubt we held a numbers advantage (and you're overplaying the tech advantage) that ultimately gave us a significant advantage, I'm not convinced we would have won the battle without having had superior strategy. It would have been much, much more costly for us to win even if we did. That to me demonstrates a system working well.

I can understand the temptation to blame all strategic failings and lack of preparation on simply being outnumbered though…

So against my better judgment I'm going to dignify this false account with a response…

I was there watching you guys working your strategy an hour or two before the battle. I was there at the tower and witnessed it first hand. You had 3-4 guys. One was running the guards around, one or two attacking them and one was ganking me when I tried to interfere. All of you were in T3.

The exact body count was 20-12, and we had five t3 guys at most. I counted at least 7-8 on your end. You had more t3 guys and almost double our numbers.

Now we learned some hard lessons about being prepared. We should have also been on an hour or two before the battle and should have been in place before you guys got there. Instead we got picked off one by one and you guys had the holding well before the battle started. Those were our mistakes.

Had we not made them, here was the most likely result given the actual facts…

We defend the holding for a bit and try to hold you off. Eventually one person catches hold of the guards, runs them off, and the remaining 19 still crush us. Once we redrawn and regroup it would be the same problem as before. We would have been forced to fight an offensive battle to get back in the hex just like how the actual battle went. Would have had a few guys on guards and the rest defending the holding.

The facts dont lie. We made some serious errors but in the end all we did was speed up the inevitable. Your numbers, tech, and the poor ai of the guards are what made any of your strategies possible. You would do well not to give yourself too much credit.
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 am not sure that you two are talking about the same battle here Paddy. From the very start of the battle that Fiery is talking about, we had a total of 6 dedicated to the guards and in close to the holding. Sure we would aid the PVP outside of the holding while the guards were down or were covered by 3 or 4 of us.

I know that you guys were outnumbered and it felt like your gear was not all T3, but it happened at the +4 holding pretty much how Fiery describes it. At least that is my memory of it.

The tactics were to mass burn the guards down then stay close to handle as they spawned. It was a massacre because A. You were late. B. You were heavily outnumbered. The tactical initiative was taken away too fast for you to have a chance to recover or do much. Otherwise would have been a much longer battle.
"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
Flari-Merchant
Flari-Merchant
I am not sure that you two are talking about the same battle here Paddy. From the very start of the battle that Fiery is talking about, we had a total of 6 dedicated to the guards and in close to the holding. Sure we would aid the PVP outside of the holding while the guards were down or were covered by 3 or 4 of us.

I know that you guys were outnumbered and it felt like your gear was not all T3, but it happened at the +4 holding pretty much how Fiery describes it. At least that is my memory of it.

The tactics were to mass burn the guards down then stay close to handle as they spawned. It was a massacre because A. You were late. B. You were heavily outnumbered. The tactical initiative was taken away too fast for you to have a chance to recover or do much. Otherwise would have been a much longer battle.

I do remember something like what you describe now though that some small part of our group was down there before the window testing the guards out. Not sure if that was significant or not as the window has its own set of guards and counter for them. Probably they were trying out the tactics that you describe seeing. You are describing Pre-Window activities and Fiery is describing Window time activities.
"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
Flari-Merchant
@ Bob

Can a group attack guards at a holding pre-window and reduce the number that will spawn throughout the window?
"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
Bob
The game was always designed to reward the ability to bring superior numbers/training/gear to the battlefield, though of course we'd like superior tactics to matter as well. We haven't focused as much attention on more interesting tactics yet as we have on a deep training and equipping system, so I'd agree that numbers/resources currently play into that balance more than we'd ultimately like them to. That said, it's clear that tactics, both in terms of battlefield maneuvers and the ability to combine feats to greatest effect as individuals and groups, do make at least some difference in achieving victory. We can do better on that front, but at some point superior numbers/resources will always win the day eventually, at least until they're too overextended to exert that force consistently on multiple fronts. Of course, there's also more work we need to do on making it advantageous to tightly control small amounts of territory (so that falling back to what you can better handle is a good strategy) and disadvantageous to loosely control large amounts of territory (so that overextending is clearly a bad idea). DI is a step in that direction, since its generation formula is biased heavily toward the first few hexes a settlement owns, and we'll keep expanding on that principle as we go.

Bob
Flari-Merchant
Can a group attack guards at a holding pre-window and reduce the number that will spawn throughout the window?

No, there's a separate pool of guards for the PvP window.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
The game was always designed to reward the ability to bring superior numbers/training/gear to the battlefield, though of course we'd like superior tactics to matter as well. We haven't focused as much attention on more interesting tactics yet as we have on a deep training and equipping system, so I'd agree that numbers/resources currently play into that balance more than we'd ultimately like them to. That said, it's clear that tactics, both in terms of battlefield maneuvers and the ability to combine feats to greatest effect as individuals and groups, do make at least some difference in achieving victory. We can do better on that front, but at some point superior numbers/resources will always win the day eventually, at least until they're too overextended to exert that force consistently on multiple fronts. Of course, there's also more work we need to do on making it advantageous to tightly control small amounts of territory (so that falling back to what you can better handle is a good strategy) and disadvantageous to loosely control large amounts of territory (so that overextending is clearly a bad idea). DI is a step in that direction, since its generation formula is biased heavily toward the first few hexes a settlement owns, and we'll keep expanding on that principle as we go.

I think that development of some kind that allow actual battle tactics to have more weight would be a great improvement for Holding conflict. Maybe if they had more obvious impact, more would stand their ground and try them out rather than abandoning if they see they are badly outnumbered (which honestly does not require a very large numbers differential to be powerful). Glad to hear that you are considering such things. smile

In the case that is described above, I have to say that I admire that "the other side" did not give up and really did give it a valiant try. No reason for bad feelings there. At the same time I give Fiery kudos for his tactics and do not begrudge him for his pride. We all want to be tactically great thinkers, but it was the right tactic at the right time, whomever commanded it. He deserves to feel proud of it.
"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
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Well Flari I agree it would have been a potentially longer battle but as I said before the end result would have been the same. We would have just delayed the inevitable.

It was already admitted that better guard ai would have made assault much more difficult. That's an improvement that can be made right there. It kind of makes the supposed advantage pointless. It's not that hard to do if coordinated right. So the system still needs improvement. One of the things I took issue with is the claim that this one battle showed the system was fine as is when most of the factora in the victory had nothing to do with the system at all.

It even showed a few flaws including the guards ai.

As for overwhelming numbers, overwhelming numbers will always win but in this game 1-3 extra people are overwhelming numbers in practice. That threshold is way too low.
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
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Well Flari I agree it would have been a potentially longer battle but as I said before the end result would have been the same. We would have just delayed the inevitable.

It was already admitted that better guard ai would have made assault much more difficult. That's an improvement that can be made right there. It kind of makes the supposed advantage pointless. It's not that hard to do if coordinated right. So the system still needs improvement. One of the things I took issue with is the claim that this one battle showed the system was fine as is when most of the factora in the victory had nothing to do with the system at all.

It even showed a few flaws including the guards ai.

As for overwhelming numbers, overwhelming numbers will always win but in this game 1-3 extra people are overwhelming numbers in practice. That threshold is way too low.
Battles are still pretty wild and confusing and I am not sure how much coordination of feats are put to use amongst members in PVP but that and other things could probably make a real noticeable difference when numbers are really almost equal. At 5 vs 4 though there is a 20% advantage (all else being equal-which is not really usual). Again a low pop situation. At 40 vs 50 I wouldn't count out the 40's chances if they were very coordinated at all. There have been times during the WoT that we successfully held off larger numbers from some towers even if we couldn't defend all of them fast enough to save.

In the total sum of things though, you are right. The guards seem to have very little impact below +4. There isn't much advantage to them to make a difference. They can be largely ignored or killed very swiftly.
"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
Smitty
@ Lisa
don’t think much is going to make standing around making dwarf towers more fun - The count up process seems to be one of the core take over functions..
That said- Perhaps you can add to it –

Make some objects destroy-able - once objects are damaged/destroyed subtract what the count has to get too in order to ( raid, over run etc)- so object __ is destroyed the cap number drops to 925, then __ is destroyed cap number drops to 850.. make some big drops- and some small drops..
At least this way as you destroy more stuff- the cap number can go down from 1000 to a lower number.. which keeps people occupied and makes things go by faster which means you can fit more targets into a feud window ( especially if your opponent is relying solely on NPC guards)
@ST-

Not sure what to say about your PvE rant- perhaps if I could lock down a Gathering of legends and force you to feud each mob type before you could kill those PvE mobs. You might be in the same mindset and feel some of the frustrations… if you had to farm goblin escalations for a few weeks to gain the influence in order to fight a GoL escalation for a few hours one night..
@ brings
my ideal PvP in this sand box is that I have options available to me that allow me to attack you when you cross my path (taking rep hits is fine, and even expected, bad guys are suppose to be scary) –
yes I think you should be able to counter high sec and low sec –
Which is why with the hide out idea - I said - if I can put down a hideout that changes the security setting to low for 10-40 minutes- you should be able to put down a hideout that changes the setting to high for 10-40 minutes ( so long as players have the ability to attack that camp and remove it- defaulting the security to whatever the hex was initially set too).

I feel any player should have the option to attack anyone; the trick is what do they have to do in order to do so;
Which is another reason I like the hide out idea - You have to carry it around, You have to make it- and you have to plan on using it- so when / if you find someone in any area you have an option to do something -

A button you press that takes away that Players choice is a horrible option / step to take without measures in place to counter the high sec button ..
So
What exactly is the counter to the 15 + hexes around ozems that are all high sec ? systematically feud them and take them over? Over the course of a month or so.? Then they can be bandits ..?? - how would a single character or even a group of 3 characters ever accomplish that task ? the thought that in order to be a minor PvP nuisance to an area requires the group to first rule the area is crazy to me..
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post