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.

Escalations: More Is Better, But Which Kind of More First?

Edam
Bob
Tuoweit
Would you be able to at least adjust some of the events (like the Brambleclaw Spy, or the Stone Claw Paymasters) to not require talking to the NPCs quite so frequently?

I'll take a quick look through and see where adjustments seem to be needed. I just increased the number of Brambleclaw Spies from 1-3, so they should be easier to find (probably in EE4). There are still a couple events where there's only one person to find on the map, but they're usually events that don't require much repetition, so they should feel okay.

One thing to keep in mind is that the number of times it's necessary to revisit an NPC is based on an assumed party size of 3-4, since Events aren't meant to be soloed. What that means is that when visiting the Brambleclaw Spy, every player in the party should talk to the Spy. That way, each player can plant a picture on the Skull-Basher goblin elders before the party needs to revisit the Spy, with most parties having to visit the Spy a total of 3 times before planting 10 pictures to complete the Event. If I set the numbers to something where solo players only had to revisit the Spy 3-4 times, then parties wouldn't have to revisit them at all. Still, I'll review all the numbers and adjust them when it seems appropriate.

That said, it turns out that Kill quests, like the Paymasters, actually share kills amongst the party as long as the party is all at the killing stage. That means that the party currently needs to revisit an Intelligence Officer every time a Paymaster is killed. I only discovered things worked that way yesterday when I was testing out the better Win Boss loot, so I'd set the numbers based on incorrect assumptions. I'll definitely fix those, and the numbers should work out for both solo players and parties.

I'll also go ahead and file a feature request to make the progress on Interaction quests shared just like Kill quests, which will allow me to rebalance things for those as well in a way that works for both solo and party play. However, it will probably be a while before that fix gets made.

Reporting back to NPCs would not seem so onerous if they gave out some minor reward each time.
Kitsune
Edam
Reporting back to NPCs would not seem so onerous if they gave out some minor reward each time.

But they do: Achievement Interactions.
Melien
Bob:

Could we get an escalation of this type: Let's call it the Wandering Circus (which could actually be). It starts on an edge hex doesn't spread, but instead wanders the board until it gets to some random exit. I had originally envisioned it as a single hard to kill monster (like a Tyrannosaurus etc..). It enters the hex gobbles up resources (leaving only heavy degraded junk to harvest) and then moves on at 4-8 hexes day.

Just because I'm thinking about it:

An actual circus could show up and wander from player settlement to player settlement and lowering the level of training/construction possible while it's there (with a series of events needing completion (over a few days) in order for the town elders send it on its merry way). <doot doot doodle loodle loot doot doo doo>
Bob
Melien
Bob:

Could we get an escalation of this type:

Eventually. The kinds of behaviors you're suggesting for Escalations are very much in line with the variants we plan to add in the future, but most will require some new code before I can set them up on the content side.
markelphoenix
Building off of bob's idea, instead of the traveling circus being a negative, it could have positive effect. Say, it increases that towns 'morale' and reduces upkeep requirements etc. Other Settlemenets can do quests to try to 'lure away' the circus to their settlement (picture competing towns, "Tax breaks here!", "Prime real-estate to set up your show!" etc.)

Heck, tie probability of a positive escalation spawning tie to skills of leadership and building types. Have a really well done Temple dedicated to Travel with a leader high up in management/personality, have a chance of spawning a pilgrimage escalation that increases some aspect of the settlement. Pilgrims would spawn several hexes away and make their way to settlement. People can kill them for monetary gain (they're carrying silver as donation) or help them arrive safely for the town bonus (which could be a town buff or direct contribution of silver to Temple/Treasury of town) etc. etc.

Implementation wise, could start in hex 1, then hex 2, hex 3, to hex n, with n being the final destination.each hex would have x time for them to 'rest,recover,meditate,gather things for their donation' etc. Timer ticks down and at 0 they transition hexes. Players can do quests that directly add or subtract time from the timer. Players can also kill pilgrims to a degree that the head pilgrim spawns. When he dies, the 'prize' goes to them. Alternatively players can d3fend the pilgrims to help them arrive at a settlement bringing a boon to it.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
markelphoenix
…tie probability of a positive escalation spawning tie to skills of leadership and building types….
Any positive or negative effect that isn't 100% random will lead to favouring 1 class of settlement over another and would be hard to explain to all the settlements that match/don't match the criteria. There are already huge bonuses inherent in being large. Using the availability of high class structures to provide an extra bonus would simply provide one more reason for everyone to congregate in one of a small number of places.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Ortallus
Caldeathe Baequiannia
…an extra bonus would simply provide one more reason for everyone to congregate in one of a small number of places.

This is something that has worried me, in general. There's a natural desire to be on the 'winning team', as evidenced by other MMO's where people flock to the server/faction that wins the most in PvP, which just further imbalances the game.

I wonder if eventually there will be a company/settlement cap. It could be raised, of course. Possibly by spending resources to build more 'housing' type structures within a settlement? Probably a horrible idea. Just a thought. xD
My ban has now gone from 7 days to permanent with a chance to appeal after 6 months. Paizo has violated the ToS and EULA, which mention nothing about repercussions for actions on the forums resulting in loss of access to the game client. I have not done anything in violation of the rules which would warrant a ban from the game client.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
If I understand the vision properly, Pathfinder Online will attempt to set settlement caps though mostly organic means. Increasing requirements of bulk resources for maintenance means that materials will have to be brought from further and further afield, increasing the opportunity for enemies to interrupt supply chains and the response times to prevent that. More POIs will mean a larger window of attack vulnerability. Limits on how much training a settlement can offer will have people chafing at settlement choices as they jockey for their preferences. The increasing need for influence, which is to be more easily obtained by new players, means that fresh blood will always be required, increasing the settlement's vulnerability to change from within. Larger companies/settlements will be easier targets of feuds and wars, requiring less influence from their enemies. Etcetera, etcetera.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
markelphoenix
Maybe it can be mutually beneficial.Big temple spawns missionaries and sends them to smaller ones, etc.
KarlBob
Boss Loot and not having to report each Paymaster kill are both great news!
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post