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.

The Return of Max Influence

Rynnik
Bob
Agreed, we'd want fairly active crafters to be able to hold a fair amount of territory. The current system does allow crafters to generate quite a bit of influence if they focus on quick crafting projects, but may be biased a bit more toward killing. Then again, an advanced crafter has quite a few options for 1-2 second crafting projects, where even advanced adventurers probably have trouble killing mobs at a consistent 4-second-per-kill rate to balance that out. Also, crafters earn influence for projects completed while off-line or doing other activities, which can be a huge advantage compared to adventurers who have to be actively playing to earn influence.
That is very true and a good point, but those 1-2 second crafting projects are also gated by the materials required to produce them. The gathering gains its own influence but that influence is NOT necessarily earned by the crafter or the company the crafter belongs to.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Bob
Starchild
1. Some process to allow holdings and outposts to be transferred from less active to more active companies without needing to tear tyhem down and put them back up again.
Would take a bit of work to implement in-game, but I could make this happen on a limited basis using GM commands. Would just need to come up with some rules to make it balanced, and to keep it from being requested very often.

Starchild
2. A way of transferring influence between companies.
Same deal, would take a bit of work to implement in-game, but I could do this on a limited basis using GM commands, with appropriate rules.

Starchild
Maybe implement this by allowing a company to disband and pass their influence and holdings to a successor company? This would allow us to line up active characters with the holdings and outposts that they need to support without a vast exercise to tear stuff down (with the risk each time of someone "stealing" the spot)
If a company could disband and pass everything to a successor company, there's not a huge difference between that and just transferring leadership to different characters and changing the company name. I do have a GM command to change names, and have helped in the past with leadership transfers where the current leaders preferred not to log in. With the right rules, I could handle more such transfers.
Tuoweit
Bob
Rynnik
Is there influence associated with posting and buying from the Auction House? That is a whole category of daily player activity worthy of being registered, imo. The merchant role is real!
There is not. With a new achievement and a bit of code to support it, there could be, though we'd need to make sure that sales too cheap to trigger at least the minimum sales fee don't count. Need to make sure there's some kind of guaranteed cost to prevent self-purchases purely for influence gain.

Even if there is some guaranteed cost, it's probably negligible compared to the amount of coin you can pull in from a high-level escalation. While rewarding market activity with influence seems like a nice idea, it also seems way too abusable.

Besides, one presumes that whoever is posting those things to the market got them through some influence-generating means, and the purchaser is going to use those things for some influence-generating purpose. No need to double-dip.

As for the dedicated reseller, they don't really need the influence in the first place - you can marketeer all you want without spending a single point of experience, so no settlement support is required.
NightmareSr
Bob

or the amount of time a crafting project required, or ….
Aren't the Crafting achievements a one-time influence gain? I thought so since the achievements only get listed once for each type of item and + level.
I figured that was why crafting doesn't reward much influence at all.
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
– Cauchemar is a Greater Nightmare –
Bob
NightmareSr
[Aren't the Crafting achievements a one-time influence gain? I thought so since the achievements only get listed once for each type of item and + level.
I figured that was why crafting doesn't reward much influence at all.
Though you only earn each crafting achievement once and they don't have a counter, they're set to always earn influence. They earn just as much influence as any other achievement set that way, but kills get to double up on both weapon type and mob type achievements, and even triple up if the mob is the target for an escalation event.
Bob
Tuoweit
As for the dedicated reseller, they don't really need the influence in the first place - you can marketeer all you want without spending a single point of experience, so no settlement support is required.
Fair point, though much of the goal of both achievements and their influence gain is to get players (and the groups their in) to participate in other parts of the game than just PvP. Selling at auction houses is something we definitely want people to do, so a properly balanced version of this could work.
Bob
Rynnik
That is very true and a good point, but those 1-2 second crafting projects are also gated by the materials required to produce them. The gathering gains its own influence but that influence is NOT necessarily earned by the crafter or the company the crafter belongs to.
Well stated, and those kinds of considerations are exactly why balancing things is so difficult. Our goal is really just to get things within a reasonable range then leave it to players to decide how much they want to adjust their behavior in pursuit of influence, coin, glory, or other goals. We certainly still have some work to do on that front, but the current system does pretty well given its simplicity.
Bob
Flari-Merchant
Still seems like right now it might punish The Little Guy a bit compared to an active group of even just 6 players.
It's hard to make any balance changes that are even noticeable to large groups that aren't much more noticeable to small groups. There are tweaks we can make to reduce that disparity, but ultimately large numbers offer huge advantages.
Edam
Bob
Starchild
Maybe implement this by allowing a company to disband and pass their influence and holdings to a successor company? This would allow us to line up active characters with the holdings and outposts that they need to support without a vast exercise to tear stuff down (with the risk each time of someone "stealing" the spot)
If a company could disband and pass everything to a successor company, there's not a huge difference between that and just transferring leadership to different characters and changing the company name. I do have a GM command to change names, and have helped in the past with leadership transfers where the current leaders preferred not to log in. With the right rules, I could handle more such transfers.
I suspect what Starchild might be getting at is a situation where a settlement has multiple zombie companies with a couple of holdings run by an alt (usually belonging to the settlement owner) and then one active real company with several actual players earning influence which in some cases may be sitting on several thousand influence.

In such a situation it would very useful if the holdings and influence and vault contents of the zombie companies could be passed on to the real company, effectively consolidating them.
Bob
Edam
I suspect what Starchild might be getting at is a situation where a settlement has multiple zombie companies with a couple of holdings run by an alt (usually belonging to the settlement owner) and then one active real company with several actual players earning influence which in some cases may be sitting on several thousand influence.
Ah, yes, I was reading "successor" company more as a replacement company than as a holding company. The case you're describing could also be handled through either some eventual code work or some limited GM work, though it might not always be in the settlement's interest to consolidate too much. As long as the settlement controls the alt leaders, switching characters between companies once in a while to build up an influence buffer would take a little effort, but could be worth the advantage of requiring either multiple feuds or a more expensive settlement feud to attack a lot of holdings at once.

Of course, if we allowed companies to transfer influence as needed to another company, that would be easier than switching characters around regularly. However, that's the kind of thing that could easily get overwhelming if it involved a GM request each time, so would have to wait on code. Very restricted, one-time transfers might be okay though.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post