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 Smitty

Smitty
Any universal cool down idea is horrible, as people will just feud alliance settlements in order to lock themselves out of PvP. If you try to lock one settlement from doing it, you just get people attacking you with 2 settlements ( or going through the proper company moving procedures..) some folks will be more than willing to run 2 combat characters to do so. So unless you introduce a mechanic that allows universal cool downs then you are going to be attacked.

I still maintain this fight is of our making and not a design issue. I am not privy to our sides diplomacy talks , but since many will say it has been tried, Can I ask you what the terms were when you asked to have a 3 day break after a feud ended?
////
Just to talk over your example a little bit, and show you how one sided it is..
You want the feud declared at least one hour before it can be used.
You want the map to show you where you are being attacked.
You want guards to help repel attackers.
You said if a feud is declared for 3 days, and is successfully defended for one day.
You want the feud to immediately end. ( no more reputation free targets for the original feud duration)
You also want a global cool down window of 2-3 days. ( so you cant be attacked, which cant be in the game or it would be abused..)
And finally you also want the influence cost to be much greater ( like 100 ? instead of 12?).- ( how will new settlements ever get to use this system?)

To sum it up, you want to be able to show up in force for an hour( with an hour notice, and a map to tell you where to go) .
You want to defend an hour ( at much greater cost than 12 influence for the attacker), and additionally you want the next 72 hours ( min) to be free of any feud.
.
You are essentially saying 1 hour of forming a blob at your chosen time window and defending your area should equal no less than 72 hours of being feud free.
How does that even sound remotely like a system that is balanced?
Smitty
Just my thoughts on the PvE stuff..

The next few sprints need to focus on the monster AI, analytics and general play-ability. While it is true the game is not suppose to be about PvE every single encounter can be managed the exact same way. Most every monster hex has places where you can just run back and forth between the 2 locations to complete quest. Sometimes a variation exist to find and right click a mob every 3 or 5 kills.

The game is not suppose to be PvE , but the PvE shouldn’t be painful to participate in either.
Escalations ..
Elemental all do their big attack once ( first thing they do). Sand pulls you, earth throws you, magma ae stuns you etc. After the attack run in circles if you are being hit.
Duregar, these guys have a bunch of ranged guys , so you focus those guys down then run in circles ..
Mordandt, take out scouts, archaeologist then run in circles..
Usties, priest stun kill them first, run in circles
Ogres- kill javelin guys, then shamans then run in circles.
For any of escalation, if you bite off more than you can chew, run away and reset the mobs.
Everything is the same strategy.. kill range run in circles, make sure if running 2 groups , the group with the most people gets the kill on stuff as that gives loot..
The escalations are repetitive and grindy, and the computer AI while not the focus of the game needs to be more engaging or people are never going to play long enough to get to the point where they want see what else the game has to offer.
..
Smitty
Thought the hex 1 north of brighthaven was coal..smile
Smitty
Come on this was a breezing through page 65.. slowed down a bit though..

So yeah, people asked to use spots on the mountain for stone and stuff, our people interested in those things said sure, you run that stuff and we will take __ of what you produce. They get the resources they wanted, EoX gets rent for use of the space.

Wonder if the SE will now attack PFU because you are obviously an EoX puppet regime!
Smitty
@ bringslite
So what you are basically saying is that PvP is not going to provide you incentive to attack anything. The only reason to attack now is RP reasons.

I know this is something that could be abused by alliances but ill bring it up for discussion anyway.

How about GW gives everyone a reason to PvP. Keep in mind this should be temporary till other systems come on line, so not sure of the benefit of adding the tech beyond being a stop gap. T3 recipes, maneuvers and expendables are still super rare. The ability of the lich to drop them and building recipes was one of the key factors in July 10th - July 15 being so active.

If GW were to add a T3 item to a holding bank if successfully overrun , would that encourage people that have no interest in PvP to actually fight other settlements for stuff? For +2 versions you get 2 items for 3 you get 3 items. ( resource items could be stacks of 100 resource or something..) just make a random deposit to the holding bank. Could add it once the holding is vulnerable to be torn down by the attackers .. which gives a reason to the defenders to try and take it back ( if they take it back they would get the loots)

That way when you win you get something of actual value.

Don’t think it would work for defense because then people would just feud friends, not show up and the “defenders” would collect T3 things.. But For attacking friends though the reduction in plus in buildings could be a deterrent to burning your own holding and outpost down. Probably wouldn’t be too hard to monitor something like this and keep exploiting minds away from the system..

Anyway just something to think about, I am not sure what would ever cause Ozems to attack anyone, but loot incentives do go a long way to motivate players .. see the 2nd week of July as evidence..
Smitty
Wouldn’t have to remove them from the company, just remove them from the influence calculation. When they come back and activate an account they are re added to the calculation.

Don’t think it will happen, but would certainly be a way to more accurately value influence and certainly make it mean more ..
Smitty
Yeah many of us all have 3 + accounts as well , with DTs and active characters on them all as well. Some folks have many more, some only have a few. Just feels like influence was declared a meaningless thing and how we spend it a meaningless jester since the groups playing now have so much of it.
.
Was trying to think how much it would take to get a company of 20 people to gain enough from scratch to get enough for 1 holding and 2 outpost in 6 hexes( what is needed to claim a settlement), and how long that would actually take, doesn’t seem like that would be a meaningless undertaking.

Just wonder how much meaning is felt in our fights if the established groups have more influence and bulk resources than they know what to do with.
Smitty

I am curious what would happen if inactive / non paying accounts were scrubbed from influence totals and calculations.

Would people have 20 hexes of holdings and enough influence to feud for .. a year straight..
Smitty
Think the difference is the feuding company has __ days of rep free conflict with the targets of the feud.

Associate companies can help with the feud during PvP windows while fighting in PvP hexes. ( same as defending companies)

I am guessing the War mechanic will allow settlements to kill each other anywhere, like the companies directly involved in the feud can now.
Smitty
For Beinion

EBA claimed territory .. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s1mq&page=1?Everbloom-Alliance-Territory

not updated for the new addition , but it is still a huge area.. but you get the idea..