Questions and dilemmas: Understanding settlements and their affect on you as a player


Pathfinder Online

151 to 181 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Isn't it more expensive to declare a feud on a smaller group? I'm not sure if war should be cheaper based on relative population or not.
Tork said that that would be the case. To my knowledge, we haven't been told that war costs would follow suit; I'd avoid the assumptions and focus on feuds vs. company alliances.

I think you have that backwards. The blog explicitly states that War costs are relative, but doesn't say the same for Feuds. Feuds costs might also be relative, but I'm not sure. I don't recall seeing a post to that effect, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

Declarations of war are one-sided, so settlements cannot refuse to be the target of a war, but the costs of the declaration are determined by the relative Development Indexes and Populations of the settlements.

[Edit] Okay, found the post from Tork.

TOTAL BONUS SNEEK-PEEK (all still stuff I'm working on)!! : It also helps to deal with some problems that come up in the calculation of feud costs, which take into consideration the relative size of an attacker vs. defender.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I stand corrected. Still, picking on groups smaller than yours is absolutely more expensive. An alliance might be as cheap as the cheapest settlement in it, meaning that the lesser ones are more exposed for their membership.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

TOTAL BONUS SNEEK-PEEK (all still stuff I'm working on)!! : It also helps to deal with some problems that come up in the calculation of feud costs, which take into consideration the relative size of an attacker vs. defender.

As I explained, if there is a flat rate cost for feuds, a higher cost is built in for feuding a small company versus a larger one.

I also operate with the assumption that feuds will be largely offensive in nature. Defenders don't really need to feud, they are consequence free to defend themselves. Those initiating feuds will typically be looking to expand their consequence free target pool, and so the larger the better.

Now you may say, "well larger is not better if they are more dangerous". Again, that is true, and that is why they may not be feuded against as frequently.

But as I stated earlier, larger does not always equal better prepared to feud.

GW does not need to create a whole system or even a part of one to adjust costs of feuds, they are self adjusting. The motives and the intent of the feuds have a great deal of meaning.

As a Bandit Company, I would wish to feud a large merchant company, ill prepared for PVP. Granted I expect us "kids" won't have the keys to the candy store, but that is what wishful thinking is for.

As a Bandit Hunting Company, I would wish to feud a smallish bandit company, outnumbered by my company. This would allow us to "Crush out enemies, drive them before us, and hear the lamentations of their women." Once again, and wishful thinking scenario, there is little indication that bandit companies will be much smaller than any other company.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf, you do realize that part of the reason for the scaling cost is to minimize the ability to cause grief, right? It's true that if the cost to feud is fixed then the cost per target will be higher, but that's not really the controlling factor. If it costs 100 Influence to start a Feud, regardless of size, then many companies will simply pick on the smaller companies because they're easier prey - the same way many players would, absent significant consequences, consistently pick on newer/weaker/less-informed players.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
@Bluddwolf, you do realize that part of the reason for the scaling cost is to minimize the ability to cause grief, right? It's true that if the cost to feud is fixed then the cost per target will be higher, but that's not really the controlling factor. If it costs 100 Influence to start a Feud, regardless of size, then many companies will simply pick on the smaller companies because they're easier prey - the same way many players would, absent significant consequences, consistently pick on newer/weaker/less-informed players.

I explained why this is not necessarily true. Smaller =/= weaker just as larger =/= more powerful.

Secondly, Ryan had specifically rejected the idea that the reputation system was to create any protected classes. Newer players are encouraged to remain in the starter area first, then to join a PC settlement and venture beyond as quickly as they are ready.

Thirdly, you are suggesting in another thread to remove those consequences for killing unaffiliated characters because they might be throw away alts.

So I don't understand why the desire to limit the use of sanctioned PVP through the use of feuds.

I would much rather "victimize" a larger, weaker, wealthier, less informed player company than a smaller, weaker, newer, less informed player company.

Final point, once you create a player company in-game, you are sending the message that you are ready to be feuded.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The purpose is to avoid the pattern where a large powerful company targets smaller companies that can't fight back effectively repeatedly.

Consider also that larger companies will tend to have more influence gain, meaning that maintaining constant-cost feuds would be easier for them.

Goblin Squad Member

One thing to consider about larger Companies vs. smaller, is that I doubt that the conflict will often involve majority numbers of the opposed sides. Unless specifically arraigned for. Smaller level conflicts (feuds) are usually a couple of guys stumbling across one or a couple of guys from the other side.

Goblin Squad Member

I think we are missing a big factor here. This Strong v. Weak griefing should be the way it is. If a newb guild is getting crap from a large guild, well that is life. We have self-entitled protect/peacekeeper guilds around with descriptions fit to match this exact problem. It is up to the newbs and the peacekeepers to stop the jerk faction's actions.

It is important to allow this to continue, and won't be as bad as thought because a simple reason: politics. If I start pking all the new people, and get my shadow group to help, people are not going to be ok with that (proven by this conversation). By engaging in those activities I have labelled myself both in terms of Reputation points and more importantly in actual reputation as a jerk who bullies newbs. PCs and NPCs alike will no longer be willing to deal with me, law-keepers will be on the hunt for me, and anyone who sees me will know of who I am and what I do.

There is no reason to change the system as is, because the basis of this game is that as individuals and societies we will be proactive towards our goals. If someone is bullying someone else, then the people against that should go be against it. It shouldn't be impossible to bully, but it should have severe repercussions, which it already does.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

This Strong v. Weak griefing should be the way it is. If a newb guild is getting crap from a large guild, well that is life. ...

It is important to allow this to continue, and won't be as bad as thought because a simple reason: politics. ...

There is no reason to change the system as is, because the basis of this game is that as individuals and societies we will be proactive towards our goals. If someone is bullying someone else, then the people against that should go be against it. It shouldn't be impossible to bully, but it should have severe repercussions, which it already does.

The developers have already told us that it will cost more to feud against smaller companies and less to feud against larger companies. That's the way the system is, and yes, there's no reason to change it.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
The developers have already told us that it will cost more to feud against smaller companies and less to feud against larger companies...

We are just assuming that the large corp has more money to use and is willing to pay to do the grief-feuding. But yes, you are absolutely right.

Goblin Squad Member

corp? money?

Larger companies might have more Influence. It all depends on their membership, what they've obligated their Influence towards, and how fast Influence is earned/regenerated(?).

I'm not sure that companies will have effectively unlimited Influence that allows them to stay in a constant state of feud. I'm guessing/assuming the devs looked how easy it was to use money to maintain wardecs in EVE, and they might have decided to curb our behavior somewhat.

Goblin Squad Member

corporations.

money being the overall "geld" of the faction, whatever it may be, that allows for action.

I wasn't arguing the point just clarifying. This is what the conversation assumes: that the larger faction has enough "x" to do "y" to the smaller faction over a long enough period of time to be considered bullying/griefing, be it a minute or three years.

Goblin Squad Member

Why on earth would they want to curb feuds and wars?

As I suspected, first get all of these consequences placed on PvP that is outside of the types of PvP GW wants us to participate in.

Then, ask for them to curb even those types of PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Why on earth would they want to curb feuds and wars?

As I suspected, first get all of these consequences placed on PvP that is outside of the types of PvP GW wants us to participate in.

Then, ask for them to curb even those types of PvP.

:eyeroll: Whatever you suspected is probably wrong, my friend.

If companies have unlimited amounts of Influence, they can effectively feud anytime they wish (see also, EVE and the use of coin/ISK for wardecs).

If companies have limited amounts of Influence, most will likely use it on meaningful targets that further their goals in game, rather than simple harassment and bullying because they're bored. GW has always stressed their intent to have PvP be meaningful.

Me, I expect that Influence will be limited. You can go on assuming and suspecting and whatever else you do in your spare time.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Urman is probably right. A major facet of this game is going to be fluidity of the limited resources and control over those. In turn they have to keep some form of a lid on meaningless PvP. Thus a limited influence pool. Battles will mean more because they will COST more, and unlike real life that cost isn't arbitrary: Influence as a game mechanic is essentially the act of a law of nature that says "X" life is worth "Y" gold/influence, and this is locked in and unable to be changed.

Whereas in real life, there is no fundamental value to value on an individual or society, and can never be one, in the game there will be, and it is going to have to be a juggling act for the factions to deal with.

For instance faction "A" can declare war on faction "B" for 100 influence, and this will allow "A" to expand and capture the gold mines. However, Faction "A"s ally, "C" asks "A" to help fight "D" and "E" for 50 influence each. Thus we see that "A" needs to decide which course is better and make a impacting, possibly world-changing decision. However with an unlimited wealth we face the problem of being able to do all of those at once, which makes the whole system slightly pointless. If you give a price but also include unlimited funding why bother with the price at all?

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Why on earth would they want to curb feuds and wars?

As I suspected, first get all of these consequences placed on PvP that is outside of the types of PvP GW wants us to participate in.

Then, ask for them to curb even those types of PvP.

:eyeroll: Whatever you suspected is probably wrong, my friend.

If companies have unlimited amounts of Influence, they can effectively feud anytime they wish (see also, EVE and the use of coin/ISK for wardecs).

If companies have limited amounts of Influence, most will likely use it on meaningful targets that further their goals in game, rather than simple harassment and bullying because they're bored. GW has always stressed their intent to have PvP be meaningful.

Me, I expect that Influence will be limited. You can go on assuming and suspecting and whatever else you do in your spare time.

As I said in another post, in another thread, why not let the real costs of feuds, wars and faction conflict be the limiting factors.

Feuds, wars and faction conflict will cost coin, resource materials, time and the risk of losing. These should be enough to reduce frivolous use of these systems.

If settlement vs. settlement conflict is the core of PFO, then the costs to participate in that aspect of the game should allow for as much participation in it as possible.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
...If settlement vs. settlement conflict is the core of PFO, then the costs to participate in that aspect of the game should allow for as much participation in it as possible.

But if the settlements themselves foot the costs for the war, and not the individuals within, or the guilds, what then? I believe it is likely that settlements will have their own reputation scores and influence points, and this is in part due by the level of the settlement and other things. This could mean that settlements that are too much at war will lose sustainability and levels and eventually degrade (think like people leaving because the amount of war, or the buildings decaying due to lack of allocated funding). This means that settlements' wars can be mutually exclusive from the feuding of companies and guilds and even individuals.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:
But if the settlements themselves foot the costs for the war, and not the individuals within, or the guilds, what then? I believe it is likely that settlements will have their own reputation scores and influence points, and this is in part due by the level of the settlement and other things. This could mean that settlements that are too much at war will lose sustainability and levels and eventually degrade (think like people leaving because the amount of war, or the buildings decaying due to lack of allocated funding). This means that settlements' wars can be mutually exclusive from the feuding of companies and guilds and even individuals.

Actually, from what I remember, all of this is already the case.

Except feuds and wars are not mutually exclusive. A feud is a war, settlement, company or whatever.

Bludd (and I) want it to be less costly so there can be more feuds, since the feuds are considered meaningful PVP and a big part of what PFO is. (granted, we do not know the cost now)

On a side note, the costs of wars in Eve have skyrocketed. They did this years ago. I know it has been modified recently, but last I remember it cost 100million ISK to wardec an alliance. Thats a good chunk of cash.

Goblin Squad Member

Don't play EVE xD that said, I will just say that being as we do not know the price of feuding, or how much impact it has in-game, we should be careful to ask for more or less. Let GW make it to fit the system then we should test and comment on it. There is logic for both choices and it boils down to freedom and proliferation or protection and importance.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
On a side note, the costs of wars in Eve have skyrocketed. They did this years ago. I know it has been modified recently, but last I remember it cost 100million ISK to wardec an alliance. Thats a good chunk of cash.

As best as I can tell, for comparison, PLEX (1 month's training time, worth about $20) are selling for 650 million ISK. Does that mean some group can effectively wardec a target group for less than $3.50?

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Xeen wrote:
On a side note, the costs of wars in Eve have skyrocketed. They did this years ago. I know it has been modified recently, but last I remember it cost 100million ISK to wardec an alliance. Thats a good chunk of cash.
As best as I can tell, for comparison, PLEX (1 month's training time, worth about $20) are selling for 650 million ISK. Does that mean some group can effectively wardec a target group for less than $3.50?

Yeah, I guess, if you want to put a monetary value to it.

I never do that because its... well... Not what I do. I bought a plex once, then regretted it. Not worth the $20.

Last I saw though, PLEX was going for 550mill. Havent been in game since July I think.

Goblin Squad Member

As I stated earlier, the nature of war decs have changed in the last year or so in EVE. High Sec Wars have declined, especially the more "casual" ones.

As I have stated a number of times, a small group of cohesive, well organized and skilled pilots (lets say 3 - 5 pilots) could make a very formidable opponent, even for a much larger organization. But the cost of these war decs was raised to 50 million isk or 100 million for an allied corporation.

50 million for a week is not that much, but the usual response if territory was not at risk was to "turtle". Most Hi Sec corps would just refuse to undock. They would switch to alts or be active only when you were off line.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Feuds and wars are considered to mostly be meaningful because they have a meaningful cost. If the cost is rendered meaningless, then the meaningfulness of the fighting will not be enhanced.

Goblin Squad Member

It would be cool if the actions of the settlement's population started to affect a change to the settlements overall appearance.

EX: lots of members have gotten negative tags thus a gloom hangs around the settlement and area. Or maybe certain changes to all the buildings, Downtrodden NPCs.

You get the idea

Probably a pipe dream

Goblin Squad Member

Ah, another necromancer for Golgotha! Welcome to the dark side, Grelf.

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry no I am Tavernhold. I think it would be just as cool to see the settlement effected by righteous deeds. Happy towns folk, butterflies, ect... lol

Goblin Squad Member

Even Chaos and Law.

Law-buildings get more angular
Chaos- you get a Weasley type construction

Goblin Squad Member

No no no, necromancy is always an evil act in PFO. If you're going to raise a thread that died 4 months ago, you definitely belong in Golgotha.

Goblin Squad Member

Happy Towns with Taverns have a continual Beer Festival going? :-)

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
No no no, necromancy is always an evil act in PFO. If you're going to raise a thread that died 4 months ago, you definitely belong in Golgotha.

LOL, point

New to forums. Best place I saw for the comment.

@Bunibuni, YES

Scarab Sages

I tasted the power of necromancy twice... Tasted good!!!

Maybe I will apply Exalted Bastard instead :D

151 to 181 of 181 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Questions and dilemmas: Understanding settlements and their affect on you as a player All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online