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.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

EE v4.0 TEST SERVER Release Notes

Avari
This opinion I am going to give is not popular, as a matter of fact most in my own group don't agree but…

I don't even consider 6ppl a small settlement. That's a FAILED settlement who may or may not have an active leader. A month and a half is MORE than enough to pass judgement on them. The sooner we are rid of these "emperors with no clothes" who never deserved a settlement to begin with the better off this game will be!

The sooner the population is forced into settlements that actually have a shot to succeed, not just the big 3-4, I'm talking your Cannis Castrums/Tavernhold/Emerald Lodge/Forgeholm etc, the sooner this game gets engaging for realz. PFO is a game meant for large groups in coordination, the longer you prolong the viability of half dozens sitting on houses of straw, the longer before this game can actually start to play like its supposed to.

HOORAY for Ryan Dancey and GW. If this doesn't work I hope you take an even BIGGER HAMMER to get the players playing as designed.

P.S. Anybody who wants to take their ball and go home because they lost something they clearly didn't have the resources to keep, was never meant for PFO to begin with.
Ortallus
Please delete this thread/comment.
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.
Kadere
I find myself with a bit of a problem. I acknowledge that I don't think Sunholm is particularly viable in our current state - but I am fiercely loyal to the Aeonian League. If Sunholm were to fold into Canis Castrum, I would find myself without access to high level Cleric training until such a time as a a proper structure for allies sharing training is in place, and a deal could be brokered with a Cleric settlement. Duffy and his men would find a similar problem with Rogue and Wizard training.

To all those suggesting that the smaller settlements need to fold up and find a new home, let me posit that it simply isn't so simple. I have allies and friends in the other League settlements, and I won't abandon them, but if Sunholm were to fold, my needs as a player will not be met. Pray tell, what is my solution?

You can't expect groups with different requirements to merge when all those requirements can't be met.
Kradlum Kabal
I don't think many people disagree with you. I would say maybe half the settlements in the game are currently below the level required to be viable. I just don't think that the proposed changes in the WoT is the way to fix that.
Honest Snotbad's Travelling Traders. Purveyors of fine goods since 2015.
Stoneroot Glade - Home of the brave.
Ravenlute
A problem I see constantly displayed by players regarding WoT is the lack of preparation given to the defending group. The balance is far to swung in favor of attackers.

Assaulters: Find a target, scout out the tower(s) they want to capture and record the targets PvP window. Plan and organize a group ahead of time that can gear up and get to the target at the time the window is open. Execute the assault.

Defenders: Demand that a majority of players be on during their PvP window every single day. Send out scouts to keep an eye on every Tower owned during the entirety of the PvP window. Scramble to get everyone to defend a tower if an assault is discovered. If these things can't be done then find out that a Tower has been lost once it is captured. Switch to Assaulters to retake the Tower at a later date.

To really get a show of force the defenders need to have an early warning system. In Shadowbane this was done by an assaulter declaring their intent to attack a location by going there and placing an item. The defending group then got to choose the PvP window within the next few days. Then all groups would gather at that time and glorious battle would ensue.

For PFO instead the assaulter could arrive at a Tower and declare intent to assault by interacting with the Tower or an object nearby. Then the defenders would be able to see notifaction that the Tower will be under attack. Give 24 hours for the defenders to marshal forces and try to keep the Tower during their following open PvP window. The ability to declare intent to assault would cost resources so that spamming all Towers for open combat would have consequences.
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Kadere
I find myself with a bit of a problem. I acknowledge that I don't think Sunholm is particularly viable in our current state - but I am fiercely loyal to the Aeonian League. If Sunholm were to fold into Canis Castrum, I would find myself without access to high level Cleric training until such a time as a a proper structure for allies sharing training is in place, and a deal could be brokered with a Cleric settlement. Duffy and his men would find a similar problem with Rogue and Wizard training.
I don't think anybody thinks you have an easy choice, Kadere. And there might be other workable options. But the game isn't designed to accommodate small groups. If the only available answer is to cross your fingers and hope the devs change their minds, I don't think it's going to have a better outcome than finding a way to fit into fewer homes. We could as easily have suggested that you all move to Everbloom, or the High Road alliance, either of which would give you all the training you need, and make those groups stronger. Or find a way to draw a hundred people into your settlements quickly, and a few hundred more slowly.

I don't envy you the next few weeks, but I hope you find an answer that works.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Avari
Kadere
I find myself with a bit of a problem. I acknowledge that I don't think Sunholm is particularly viable in our current state - but I am fiercely loyal to the Aeonian League. If Sunholm were to fold into Canis Castrum, I would find myself without access to high level Cleric training until such a time as a a proper structure for allies sharing training is in place, and a deal could be brokered with a Cleric settlement. Duffy and his men would find a similar problem with Rogue and Wizard training.

To all those suggesting that the smaller settlements need to fold up and find a new home, let me posit that it simply isn't so simple. I have allies and friends in the other League settlements, and I won't abandon them, but if Sunholm were to fold, my needs as a player will not be met. Pray tell, what is my solution?

You can't expect groups with different requirements to merge when all those requirements can't be met.

Contraction isn't going to be any easier on the big alliances than it would be on the smaller ones. However IMHO the sooner those tough decisions are made the better for the health of the game.

I think this ploy by GW will work. If its got the failed settlements in a tizzy then its already doing its job. But again, if it doesn't work, I am on board for GW continuing to hammer at the problem with other methods.

I can totally see a settlement like Riverbank or Sunholm making a last push to get themselves on the viable list. But this right here should be "last call". The game must move on past the failed settlements. My pardons to any bruised egos, but this is a fragile phase for PFO and I am convinced that there IS a big enough population for the game to be fun RIGHT NOW, but only if everybody is playing out 10-12 settlements.
Tyncale
So which are the viable crafting Settlements?
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Ortallus
Please delete this thread/comment.
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.
Duffy Swiftshadow
We already have a plan if this goes live and after doing the math and looking at the map there will be less possible conflict over towers and our playing habits will not change. So what exactly is the point of condensing if it doesn't really change the WoT state? I'm not debating from an emotional standpoint, I've already mechanically solved the problem, I'm just pointing out that the resulting state does nothing about the higher level conflict around WoT. It only removes philosophical and role playing diversity from the game world and drives away those who feel they've been bait and switched.

We only exist because the game state allows it, not enough people joined the game to push us out. So we figured out how to survive, and now 1 month in you're advocating to pull the rug out from under us for no reason than 'because we thought you wouldn't exist'. To me that means the basis of your assumptions are incorrect and changing things to deprive us is admitting you have no idea what to do to. Especially after so much effort went into organizing alliances and even deciding on training picks.

You want us to go away? Make better recruitment tools (which the recent email is a great start) and give us direct control over settlement capability growth. Once siege warfare goes in we will be big enough to survive or get wiped out and by then if it happens so be it.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post