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 Tork Shaw

Tork Shaw
Tuoweit
Aside from building Holdings & Outposts, and declaring feuds, are there any other intended Influence expenditures? If a company is not planning on building an outpost nor declaring feuds, is the Influence it gains essentially wasted?

We have a few on the list (temporary bonuses, special items/features, pie in the sky…smile but they will likely not feature for a while. A company who do not want to own things or do feuds will be able to use their influence to push feuds thrown at them (i.e. choose a better time for them to start) and get minor company bonuses that improve quality of life for company members. Influence is the 'currency' of PvP, however, so it isnt all that much use (and likely will never be) to companies who do not with to engage in such systems.
Tork Shaw
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Influence should not be retained intact if the character is gone. It will incentivize creating and destroying a series of alts that make a contribution then are gone a day or two later until the company approaches max influence.

Correct. We discussed whether or not only characters who were earning XP could also earn influence and that is still a possibility (making it much more inconvenient, but still possible, to do the above) but in fact it might not be necessary.

It is not/should not be a chore to collect influence. It is not hugely important or problematic if a company can 'farm' a wee bit of influence with some shenanegins. Remember always - influence is capped. That is the most important thing about it. It controls what a company of X size can do RIGHT NOW. We hope and expect that eventually ALL companies will get to their max influence. We are not trying to PREVENT the acquisition of influence or to make it a challenge or a chore. The reason a company has to earn it is to ensure ONGOING engagement at all levels of play.

Dont get too hung up on getting it too fast - remember always: it is capped.
Tork Shaw
Decius
If a company loses members and their max influence goes below current influence, is it lost?)

Yupyup. Losing members and then acquiring new ones will mean rebuilding your influence.
Tork Shaw
Doc
It should probably be set up so that only characters actively training EXP contribute to the companies cap. That would alleviate plenty of cases for abuse.

Indeedy. This is on the list but not imminent smile
Tork Shaw
Thannon Forsworn
Does this system make it unlikely for 'new' companies to ever bother recruiting veterans? I think we need to be careful if the system too strongly encourages 'gaming' it.

It makes it less attractive to recruit veterans, correct! Veterans are their own reward. It is more important for us to incentivise recruiting noobs.
Tork Shaw
Yeh the terrain is going to be super-critical too. If you have a wander around the map you'll notice a significant range of safety in different locations both in terms of access to the hex and even just an access route up to a PoI location.

Settlements are a wee while away and so are PoIs. Many of the systems mentioned above are considered 'critical' for their implementation, however (at least at this stage!) Hopefully that means that when these things go in they go in all tied up smile
Tork Shaw
Just a couple of things to add:

It is important that 'border control' doesnt extend beyond what a settlement and its PoI/Outpost allies can actually manage physically. There will never be an 'alert' that indicates when someone enters your territory because we absolutely dont want organisations to be able to lock down big swathes of territory. There will be alerts for attacks, of course, but not for random folks wandering across your borders.

As for the statement "all those hexes of territory haven't really improved my security posture one bit" - I dont think this is true at all.

Every hex an attacker has to 'roll through' is a chance to deplete or destroy their offensive. If you own or are allied with the PoI in a particular hex you can arrange for them to shut down respawn of attackers/outsiders in that hex, and you already have the advantage of numbers, local resources, and

Hexes around your settlement will provide a buffer and an advantage - not a 'safe zone' of sovereignty. You have what you hold. That said, to actually take what you hold off you is considerably harder if you have a swathe of territory between you and your enemies.

In addition - to take a settlement your attackers will need siege engines. To make siege engines they will need a siege camp. To make a siege camp they will have to take down one of your near-by PoI's and build it! Siege engines move exceptionally slowly, so they cant be practically wheeled across large areas and expect to survive.

The (great) suggestions above about control/supply lines/ownership buffs and debuffs are already largely covered by the basic mechanics of warfare. The defender is always at a HUGE advantage - particularly when you consider the combination of multiple deaths likely in warfare, durability damage, and full loot. Unprepared attackers will very quickly become exhausted without a supply line, and the fact that defenders will control nearly all the shrines around their settlement give them a VAST advantage in combat.

Finally, note that each PoI around your settlement is a) supplying your settlement with upkeep goods and b) providing a DI bonus to your settlement. It would be BANANAS to make an attack on a settlement without first crippling its PoIs.

In summary then - there are no mechanical 'ring', 'borders', or 'gates' designed around territory. It must be governed, controlled, and protected by allies and your population. However, making attacks on settlements will be effectively impossible without first chewing your way through many of the PoIs in neighbouring hexes.
Tork Shaw
Thanks for the feedback, I'll keep an eye on things.

The 'pure' reputation numbers are not really designed to indicate the player's behaviour over time -that comes from other features we've not got around to yet - although there will likely be a curve built into the regen-rate post WoT to ensure that only REALLY long term good behaviour can get players up to the 5500+ sort of area.

In a sense reputation IS a sort of resource to be managed. I think the pressures on the reputation system are unfortunately more straightforward and basic than a more complex system can allow. Reputation is designed to push back against the kind of unsanctioned PvP nightmare that Darkfall struggled with. Behaving like a jerk buys you a couple of days of time out and I believe that is actually pretty persuasive for most players. The more interesting, valuable, and complex aspects of reputation as a measure of player's jerk-ness will be covered by some of the wrapper systems that surround the pure rep numbers.

I'm very pleased to see you folks keeping an eye on it so far.
Tork Shaw
Hey folks. Good to see some feedback on this - the current numbers are my best-guess.

What did you mean by 'for long term planning' Guurzak?

The current numbers are meant to be pretty punitive. The kind of behaviour we are aiming for is occasional kilss/raids (a couple of times a week) beyond sanctioned PvP. Of course right now we have NO sanctioned PvP, and even the WoT system is only a small fraction of the final goal (faction PvP, wars, feuds, flags…smile so its tricky for those who want to PvP to avoid tanking rep.
Tork Shaw
I think the first thing to say is that it is important to remember I am not designing a system to satisfy only the current population or the alliances and political structures they have developed over the last 2 years. Indeed, when the 5k or so people who have access to EE log in and begin to run amok I think it will be something of a tumultuous time for early adopters.

If you wish to work together with an 'allied' company to capture a tower you can, very effectively, by dividing up the labor. Only one of you should gain points with the other providing support in the form of offense, defense, and healing.

As of EE (and indeed, as of the build being tested right now) tower DO matter for training and crafting - limiting access to skills by level. Shortly after that build is released and we go into EE we will have alliances ALSO affecting where you can receive your training and crafting access - so settlements will be able to lock non-members/non-allies out. These two features will create a significant shift in the relationship between your character advancement (what you describe as MVP) and towers/settlements/PvP.

I understand your concerns, however, the warfare systems (longterm) and the WoTT system (short term) were designed on a much larger scale than is currently active. I also agree that the systems are incomplete, but this is the nature of MVP. The social systems in PFO are incredibly complex and will have to be rolled out one chunk at a time. I think that what we have meets our short term goal of providing meaningful PvP interactions but it certainly does not provide the complex alliances and politics we expect in full on PFO.

As to your frustrations with how we want you to organize - as you point out, this is a sandbox. Organize any way you wish - which it seems right now includes significant off-line organisation. I am not going to say what I believe is the 'best' way to organize, I'd rather let the players find that out for themselves. I would add, however, that the BEST way to organize is always the way that generates the best experience for you and your friends/allies/cronies. Remember that a wipe is on the way and a new build with additional features is around the corner.

Please keep the feedback coming, but bear in mind that it is really too early for any of us to be making too many large scale judgments about these systems until they are in the 'real game', as it were.