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.

EE 15.1 Preliminary Release Notes

Demiurge
My thoughts on the bandit raiding holdings stuff.

I do not see a need to give them access to the other vaults as the purpose of the raids is to get bulk, not peoples harvest kits and heal tokens they have stashed. Giving access to Company bulk will not help much as people will just move it to a settlement or freehold more often.

HOWEVER … I do concede its a bit of a fruitless exercise for bandit types at present as they have no way of knowing what they are getting until after they feud and attack. The holding may have just been emptied.

What the bandit types actually need is a way to expend some small amount of influence to find out what is in a holding secure vault. If they then decide to go ahead and raid that initial influence can go towards the feud cost.
Kenton Stone
I don't engage in these "debates" often but I get annoyed when the "Not Bandits" try to speak for the Actual Bandits.
The current raiding mechanic is broken, but even without that the fact that someone can move their wallet from their right pocket to their left pocket and that makes it impossible to pickpocket them for some reason is ridiculous.

Demiurge
I do not see a need to give them access to the other vaults as the purpose of the raids is to get bulk
Who said the only purpose of a raid is to get bulk, the purpose of the raid is to take anything not nailed down. The current situation is we can only get bulk and nothing else and even then only 5% from the Secure vault and one days production.

If I used the minimum of 25 influence I lose to the raid to upgrade an outpost the payback would dwarf any haul from a raid.

We are trying to spice up game but still need some incentive. I have to pay for the privilege of robbing someone and don't even get an achievement for it.


Demiurge
, not peoples harvest kits and heal tokens they have stashed.
Consequences, if you leave it undefended it should be subject to raids.

Demiurge
Giving access to Company bulk will not help much as people will just move it to a settlement or freehold more often.

This at least has the potential of offering more targets for banditry, the ridiculous number of high security hexes aside.

Demiurge
HOWEVER … I do concede its a bit of a fruitless exercise for bandit types at present as they have no way of knowing what they are getting until after they feud and attack. The holding may have just been emptied.

You have no idea!

Demiurge
What the bandit types actually need is a way to expend some small amount of influence to find out what is in a holding secure vault. If they then decide to go ahead and raid that initial influence can go towards the feud cost.

I am not spending influence to learn that, anyone should be able to kill the guards and take a quick peek at the holdings contents.
Bringslite
"If I used the minimum of 25 influence I lose to the raid to upgrade an outpost the payback would dwarf any haul from a raid."

@Kenton- I was under the impression that the 25 influence was not "spent" if your raid succeeds. Is that not true?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
@Bob- For the sake of discussion, how difficult would it be to increase the "Loot" result from raids to 5% from every vault in a Holding?

Let's face it, PVP deserves some love too. You have players that are fans of PVP in all of it's various styles. Eventually, if it is kept so unrewarding (on the simple low aspect of getting some loot for risk), you will lose some of those to newer and more fulfilling games.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bob
Bringslite
@Bob- For the sake of discussion, how difficult would it be to increase the "Loot" result from raids to 5% from every vault in a Holding?

Let's face it, PVP deserves some love too. You have players that are fans of PVP in all of it's various styles. Eventually, if it is kept so unrewarding (on the simple low aspect of getting some loot for risk), you will lose some of those to newer and more fulfilling games.

Technically, it probably wouldn't be all that difficult, and it's certainly in line with our original intentions toward looting of vaults.

I do have some concern that making holding vaults vulnerable to loss, particularly right now when there aren't a lot of people to defend them, could lead to everyone just avoid their use. There might also be other ways to game the system that players would fall back to instead. I'd want to consider those kinds of things carefully, and think about whether or not some other systems needed to be in place before opening all those vaults up to that level of risk.

I'd also be a bit concerned about anything left in a holding vault by players who might consider coming back to the game. Those vaults were relatively safe when things were put there, at least in the sense that you could always retake the hex and get access to your hidden vaults. At the very least, we'd probably want to warn everyone that anything they'd left there was becoming vulnerable.

I also have a related concern that this at least initially would be most rewarding when discovering a hex with lots of "abandoned" vaults in it, which in turn would likely be in hexes that would only be defended by guards rather than by actual players. There might even be cases where it was worth putting up an undefended holding just so you could raid it and get at those vaults. There are a lot of weird possibilities out there as a result of people depositing things where they thought they were safe, things that generally wouldn't be a problem if the risks were made clearer upfront.
Bob
Bringslite
I was under the impression that the 25 influence was not "spent" if your raid succeeds. Is that not true?

Influence from a feud is only preserved if it's invested into a captured holding. That's because you're basically transferring banked influence from the feud to the holding directly. Then when the feud ends, there isn't any influence left in it to return to the company and 25% of nothing is nothing, so there's no influence lost until the holding gets torn down later. On the other hand, you also don't get any influence back when the feud ends, since it's now in the holding.

Raids don't have anywhere to transfer their influence, so you've still got all your influence banked in the feud when it ends. We then take our 25% cut when the feud influence is returned to the company.
Bringslite
Thanks for clearing that up. No wonder raiding isn't more common. Hehe! smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
Bob
Bringslite
@Bob- For the sake of discussion, how difficult would it be to increase the "Loot" result from raids to 5% from every vault in a Holding?

Let's face it, PVP deserves some love too. You have players that are fans of PVP in all of it's various styles. Eventually, if it is kept so unrewarding (on the simple low aspect of getting some loot for risk), you will lose some of those to newer and more fulfilling games.

Technically, it probably wouldn't be all that difficult, and it's certainly in line with our original intentions toward looting of vaults.

I do have some concern that making holding vaults vulnerable to loss, particularly right now when there aren't a lot of people to defend them, could lead to everyone just avoid their use. There might also be other ways to game the system that players would fall back to instead. I'd want to consider those kinds of things carefully, and think about whether or not some other systems needed to be in place before opening all those vaults up to that level of risk.

I'd also be a bit concerned about anything left in a holding vault by players who might consider coming back to the game. Those vaults were relatively safe when things were put there, at least in the sense that you could always retake the hex and get access to your hidden vaults. At the very least, we'd probably want to warn everyone that anything they'd left there was becoming vulnerable.

I also have a related concern that this at least initially would be most rewarding when discovering a hex with lots of "abandoned" vaults in it, which in turn would likely be in hexes that would only be defended by guards rather than by actual players. There might even be cases where it was worth putting up an undefended holding just so you could raid it and get at those vaults. There are a lot of weird possibilities out there as a result of people depositing things where they thought they were safe, things that generally wouldn't be a problem if the risks were made clearer upfront.
I'll just try and keep it brief.
There are almost always going to be workaround-workable tricks and treats for dealing with game features. However, almost all of these would involve players having to "do things" to protect their goods from raiders. Moving them (gasp! smile Putting them on alts just standing there, etc… Mostly painful "escape from loss" methods that end up at least involving player effort.
Eventually non subbed players will need to accept that their "stuff" is not invulnerable if not just for the fact that it simply isn't fair to subbed players. I assume that you have ways to at least attempt to contact non subbed players. Not anyone's fault if they do not maintain ways to contact them. Games need change. People should expect that.

My thoughts on more of your concerns
*If you were to institute "5%" of ALL" then maybe raise the Influence cost a bit. That will serve to limit frequency of raids to only The Serious. They will need to trade off some of their playtime toward grinding Influence through more regular gameplay but still might be worth it to them.
*At only 5% loss from the Holding per vault, it will take quite a few raids to put a serious loss on any one Holding. Constantly reducing returns for effort. Lots of content and lots of warning to protect your stuff better.
*The game seriously needs incentives to make PVP, in all forms, feel worthwhile. That or it really needs to down play PVP in all ways that it presents itself publically. Even if it's footprint is currently small as far as most games go. Need to adjust what people can see as far as PFO's descriptions, etc… are available via gameplay description. People searching around find too much mention about fun PVP that really does not exist. People STILL believe that it is a totally OW PVP game with full loot. That is either a turn off for some or a false promise for others but it is misleading either way.

Just my thoughts that you might do things you can which are the easiest adjustments possible. At this stage, I can't see that trying some things would be all too harmful, IMO (uneducated as it may be).
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Wait, raise the influence cost for a raiding feud even more? 25% loss of influence isn't enough? More warning time? An hour or more warning time for an incoming raid feud where holdings can only be raided on several hours of the day, three days a week, and all of that being able to be chosen by the defending settlement?

How does increasing the cost and giving even more warning provide any incentive to go raid something? Leave well enough alone on those fronts.
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
Bringslite
*All suggestions are designed to annoy as many as possible. smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post