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.

Feud details?

NightmareSr
I finally read through the Feud details in game. Is there any point at all to raiding holdings?
I mean I am not a fan of raiding and don't want to do it, but 100 influence minimum to feud. Then you need to still kill off guards during the correct time, and the big reward for all of this is that day's production and just 5% of the bulk in the secure vault? So you have to find a holding with about 2,000 bulk just to get 100 bulk if successful, and 100 bulk can be purchased from Talonguard AH or easily generated anyway? Seems like the rules have made raids completely pointless, or am I missing something?
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
Kenton Stone
You are missing nothing, that is why no one raids anymore, it's pointless. It is more reasonable to just take the holding and gather all the resources yourself.
Bob
True, there's not a lot to get out of raiding a holding if the owners regularly clean out the vaults. Part of the problem is that we don't want to create rewards out of thin air because that incentivizes fake attacks just to get those rewards. That means anything the raiders gain, the owners have to lose. There are multiple ways we could do that (require certain bulk minimums to stay active, cause damage to the raided holdings that translates into valuable salvage and has to be repaired, etc…smile, and we plan to revisit it, but they're all going to involve a fair amount of work.
NightmareSr
Bob
True, there's not a lot to get out of raiding a holding if the owners regularly clean out the vaults. Part of the problem is that we don't want to create rewards out of thin air because that incentivizes fake attacks just to get those rewards. That means anything the raiders gain, the owners have to lose. There are multiple ways we could do that (require certain bulk minimums to stay active, cause damage to the raided holdings that translates into valuable salvage and has to be repaired, etc…smile, and we plan to revisit it, but they're all going to involve a fair amount of work.
I wasn't questioning why there aren't rewards out of thin air. I was more shocked that the percentage is 5% of holding secure contents. I would think if the guards are all killed and the holding is right there that it should be a higher amount of the contents. Just 5% means you barely get any return for the 100 influence, and the holding owner losses nearly nothing for just ignoring the raid, if they want.
I suppose this works for me though cause I don't need to worry at all about being raided. smile
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
Bob
NightmareSr
I wasn't questioning why there aren't rewards out of thin air. I was more shocked that the percentage is 5% of holding secure contents. I would think if the guards are all killed and the holding is right there that it should be a higher amount of the contents. Just 5% means you barely get any return for the 100 influence, and the holding owner losses nearly nothing for just ignoring the raid, if they want.
I suppose this works for me though cause I don't need to worry at all about being raided. smile

Well, we did set up that percentage back when there were a fair number of unattended holdings out there, and we didn't want them drained too quickly. That's not really an issue anymore, so increasing the percentage is an option, and a fairly easy one to implement.

Our other concern was not setting it so high that vault clearing became too essential. That's not fun for the holding owners who have to constantly clear the vaults, or for the raiders who never find uncleared vaults. Ideally, we'd want to find that sweet spot where owners would rather live with occasional losses, but those losses are significant enough to make occasional raiding worthwhile. At 5%, an owner doesn't have to worry about losing more than 15% of a vault's content in a given week, so there's not an overwhelming incentive to clear out every vault before the 3 days of PvP begin. At 15%, the owners could lose more like 50%, which might or might not be too much to risk losing. Maybe 10% would be a good compromise, or at least something easy to try out.

Longer run, we can do things to incentivize having more things in holding vaults, and make it harder to clear the vaults, to find a better balance.

NightmareSr
Bob
Well, we did set up that percentage back when there were a fair number of unattended holdings out there, and we didn't want them drained too quickly. That's not really an issue anymore, so increasing the percentage is an option, and a fairly easy one to implement.

Our other concern was not setting it so high that vault clearing became too essential. That's not fun for the holding owners who have to constantly clear the vaults, or for the raiders who never find uncleared vaults. Ideally, we'd want to find that sweet spot where owners would rather live with occasional losses, but those losses are significant enough to make occasional raiding worthwhile. At 5%, an owner doesn't have to worry about losing more than 15% of a vault's content in a given week, so there's not an overwhelming incentive to clear out every vault before the 3 days of PvP begin. At 15%, the owners could lose more like 50%, which might or might not be too much to risk losing. Maybe 10% would be a good compromise, or at least something easy to try out.

Longer run, we can do things to incentivize having more things in holding vaults, and make it harder to clear the vaults, to find a better balance.
Well for the current 15% loss the raid costs 125 influence. That is the balance I noticed to be odd. I suppose the possible 15% compared to a 50% loss would be extreme. Maybe the better balance would be to decrease the cost of a feud? It certainly makes sense that the decision was made to make clearing vaults less essential cause, "That's not fun for the holding owners who have to constantly clear the vaults,". But at the same degree the cost of influence is huge when compared to how hard influence is to gain, at least when compared to outpost generating every day with no effort from players after being placed. I don't know what the good middle ground is but when I read the cost to feud and the benefits the Holding Capture seemed balanced and thoughtful, but the Holding Raid seems arbitrary and not worthwhile. Honestly I prefer it the way it is since I don't want to attack holdings and don't want mine attacked either but it just didn't seem fair.
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
Maxen
NightmareSr
Bob
Well, we did set up that percentage back when there were a fair number of unattended holdings out there, and we didn't want them drained too quickly. That's not really an issue anymore, so increasing the percentage is an option, and a fairly easy one to implement.

Our other concern was not setting it so high that vault clearing became too essential. That's not fun for the holding owners who have to constantly clear the vaults, or for the raiders who never find uncleared vaults. Ideally, we'd want to find that sweet spot where owners would rather live with occasional losses, but those losses are significant enough to make occasional raiding worthwhile. At 5%, an owner doesn't have to worry about losing more than 15% of a vault's content in a given week, so there's not an overwhelming incentive to clear out every vault before the 3 days of PvP begin. At 15%, the owners could lose more like 50%, which might or might not be too much to risk losing. Maybe 10% would be a good compromise, or at least something easy to try out.

Longer run, we can do things to incentivize having more things in holding vaults, and make it harder to clear the vaults, to find a better balance.
Well for the current 15% loss the raid costs 125 influence. That is the balance I noticed to be odd. I suppose the possible 15% compared to a 50% loss would be extreme. Maybe the better balance would be to decrease the cost of a feud? It certainly makes sense that the decision was made to make clearing vaults less essential cause, "That's not fun for the holding owners who have to constantly clear the vaults,". But at the same degree the cost of influence is huge when compared to how hard influence is to gain, at least when compared to outpost generating every day with no effort from players after being placed. I don't know what the good middle ground is but when I read the cost to feud and the benefits the Holding Capture seemed balanced and thoughtful, but the Holding Raid seems arbitrary and not worthwhile. Honestly I prefer it the way it is since I don't want to attack holdings and don't want mine attacked either but it just didn't seem fair.

To be fair again to the system, we are a handful of players trying to operate a game meant to be played by thousands. Yes, 100 influence is significant for a single player earning influence for a company. But to a company of 40 active players, it may be a drop in the bucket.

I again caution against any changes that are based on making the game easier for the few. It needs to be written for the masses.
NightmareSr
I just realized I was thinking of 100 influence per holding, but with a coordinated attack a company could spend 100 influence and attack numerous holdings. So nevermind this isn't as strange as I thought.
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
Bob
NightmareSr
Well for the current 15% loss the raid costs 125 influence. That is the balance I noticed to be odd. I suppose the possible 15% compared to a 50% loss would be extreme. Maybe the better balance would be to decrease the cost of a feud? It certainly makes sense that the decision was made to make clearing vaults less essential cause, "That's not fun for the holding owners who have to constantly clear the vaults,". But at the same degree the cost of influence is huge when compared to how hard influence is to gain, at least when compared to outpost generating every day with no effort from players after being placed. I don't know what the good middle ground is but when I read the cost to feud and the benefits the Holding Capture seemed balanced and thoughtful, but the Holding Raid seems arbitrary and not worthwhile. Honestly I prefer it the way it is since I don't want to attack holdings and don't want mine attacked either but it just didn't seem fair.

An important thing to remember is that you get 75% of that influence back at the end of the feud, so the real cost is more like 25-32 influence for each raid-driven feud. You do have to get 100-125 stocked up to start your first feud, but then you only need to recover the lost 25-32 to start each successive feud. Of course, you would theoretically get that back after a holding capture, except that usually you'll bank it in the captured holding and any outposts, so you don't get it back until you lose or destroy the building sometime later.

The other thing is that we can't easily make a differently priced feud for raids vs. captures. If the system seems pretty balanced for captures, then the lever we can most easily mess with for raids is on the rewards side. Fortunately, the vault percentage is trivial to change, and I'm open to raising it to at least 10% if that sounds like it would make at least an occasional raid more worthwhile.
Bob
NightmareSr
I just realized I was thinking of 100 influence per holding, but with a coordinated attack a company could spend 100 influence and attack numerous holdings. So nevermind this isn't as strange as I thought.

That too, though some companies don't have many unprotected holdings.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post