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.

All posts created by Flari-Merchant

What about some sort of faction perk that allows you to mark another player and sets his security lvl wherever he may be at the moment but is on a timer of some length?

Perhaps tie your concern into development energy that broadens out the scope of the game(plz add factions) rather than deepens existing mechanics?

Not that your idea is not without merit but sounds like more work, over all.
Getting weary of it again but I think that the mole hill(issue) is being built illogically into a mountain.

There are in fact MORE places for penalty free PVP now than ever.

There are in fact less places to PVP, I can agree with that.

There are now places(other than TK) that New Players can get some experience and skills under them before they have to face PVP from random players. That also has some value to a part of the MMORPG market.
Sigh Brings I don’t care what you think - really im not trying to convince you – I know you disagree with pretty much every point I raise on these forums –

Feuds are a terrible idea for a catch all PvP currency- that is my opinion - you don’t share it - I think you are wrong ( read reasons if you desire) .. ,
nothing you can say to me will make me think limiting a play style is a productive stance- especially if the proposal to include that play style requires gathering and crafting and planning to actually implement it..
As you said Gw decide what they want to do - I am alright with that - but each time they make a decision that kills a play style they are just further limiting potential customers and they need to think about expanding the pool instead of limiting the pool of players the game may appeal to ( once again just my opinion).
Ok fair enough, Smitty. I do not think that we CAN agree totally about PVP even though I do agree on a few lvls such as there should be more of it and should be easier for new players.

I am not sure why you see the Sec Hex mechanic as further limiting things. I see it as opening it up even more for PVP. There are far and away more hexes open for PVP than not and many more for PVP(penalty free) than there where before, butI grasp that you just don't see it the same. Fair enough.
Okay so then lets look at why the ultimate answer is feuds. The design of the game is such that there not be unlimited random PVP without some type of cost to it. Feuds are part of that. As well, they are for players that enjoy territorial PVP to be conducted with out Reputation penalty costs that would curtail it.

Now I can agree that there is a problem about new players that just want to randomly PVP and can't find an easy way to do that but maybe that is part of the design and not the preferred type of player for this game? Certainly though it should be looked into if I am wrong about the above points…
Still haven't heard why it is so important to try and find your action in High Sec hexes….
I think that we are just speculating and trying to broaden options. Maybe those that don't like some ideas are voicing their opinions and stuff like that. Not all, even from the same group have the same opinions.

Stuff that is supposed to be normal on a forum.

Edit: You do believe that Paizo should get the most opinions on all ideas that they can and that it still doesn't mean they will do them whether we all agree here or not, don't you?
True. For a deposit of 100 and an end cost of a mere 25 influence, you can have an open feud for 4 days?

@ Bob,

Am I right about that Bob? Or is it just during exact PVP windows?
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.
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.
@ Bob

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