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

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.
omnipotentseal
Canis Castrum was a small settlement in the Land Rush. Remember, we only had 12 votes, placing us in position 25 of 30. Our settlement has grown in Early Enrollment because of, at least, three factors: 1) location, location, location; we're in a sweet spot for north/south trade, 2) trade partnerships made by Thannon, ensuring productive crafters and harvesters, 3) recruitment efforts, it takes a lot of people keep even our barter economy running smoothly. These three factors are what allowed us to grow since EE Day 1. They're what allowed us to grow by nearly 250%, according to Thod. PFO is still basically an economy simulator, which means merchant towns will naturally attract more players.

We were told to fold during the Land Rush. I remember when we were in Hex T, people actually suggested we "bend the knee" to Empire of Xellias. Instead we garnered the support of the community through our trade and politics, that goodwill allowed us to maintain our borders (so far) during WoT. We wouldn't have had that goodwill, however, if we just folded. We certainly wouldn't have the active player forums, we do today if we folded. Yesterday, I set up a new player from one of our companies! If we folded, there would not be a "great trade city of Canis Castrum" (one of our player's epithets, not mine).

Until the game itself folds, the Aeonian League will remain active. Canis Castrum supports our allies in Hope's End and Sunholm. We believe every active settlement (regardless of size) deserves a chance for success.
Peace

omnipotentseal
Official Ambassador of Canis Castrum
Avari
Tyncale
So which are the viable crafting Settlements?

Keeper's Pass, Callambea and Cannis Castrum are all, imo, viable crafting settlements who would benefit from contraction. If contraction happens one of the results may be a rally around one of the currently failed crafting settlements.

There are a good dozen or so currently failed settlements who still have a chance to come out of this in good shape. This update is not the death knell for failed states, it's just the first warning shot that time is running out.

Edam
It is still an odd move on GW part with such low player numbers.

There are many players who are not happy with either of the "benevolent autocratic dictatorships" and if it comes to a choice of joining one of the two big power blocs or quitting some will undoubtably quit.

There are many people that enjoy the challenge of being part of a small community that needs to struggle for things rather than join up with a large organization that pretty much centralizes supply and hands out gear and weapons willy nilly to the rank and file as needed. In many cases these people (as opposed to the "lets sign up with whoever gives me the best stuff" brigade) are among the most interesting players, players that the game needs to keep.

The other question to ask is why if we actually want just two power blocs doesn't the game have a built in horde/alliance style faction choice on character creation ?
Avari
Edam
It is still an odd move on GW part with such low player numbers.

There are many players who are not happy with either of the "benevolent autocratic dictatorships" and if it comes to a choice of joining one of the two big power blocs or quitting some will undoubtably quit.

There are many people that enjoy the challenge of being part of a small community that needs to struggle for things rather than join up with a large organization that pretty much centralizes supply and hands out gear and weapons willy nilly to the rank and file as needed. In many cases these people (as opposed to the "lets sign up with whoever gives me the best stuff" brigade) are among the most interesting players, players that the game needs to keep.

The other question to ask is why if we actually want just two power blocs doesn't the game have a built in horde/alliance style faction choice on character creation ?

There are plenty of settlements posting decent #'s in every area of the map and not just the two power blocs. There is also a difference between a viable niche settlement that's managed to gain some traction and some dude hanging on to a settlement because their name is on the door and it fits their char concept. The former has my full support.
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.
Bunibuni
May I suggest instead of removing all the core towers, try this idea:

1. Remove the core six only around inactive villages but keep the rest of the towers. They can be reactivated when the village gets active. This will lower the amount of towers in the game but not drastically.

2. Limit NPC villages to level 5 for classes and equivalent crafting levels.

3. PC villages that only hold six towers are limited to level 6 for classes and equivalent crafting levels. In other words, one level per tower held for the first six.

4. Beyond the first six towers, a village gets one level per two towers held. So if you want a level nine role or equivalent crafter, your settlement has to hold 12 towers. You want level 12, then your settlement needs to hold 18 towers.

With the NPC villages only going to level five and crafting limited to that level, it will encourage folks to move out of starter villages and join settlements sooner than they are now. Crafters won't be able to use the starter villages to craft higher level items and will have to find a crafting friendly village or alliance. The four roles will also have to find villages that will train their roles to higher levels.

This also means you need to make a bigger priority on making training only available to your home village and the allied villages.

5. More reluctant idea, all tower hexes are open PvP 23/7 but still the tower taking time period stays the same.
Crafting! Gathering! Monster Killing! Exploring! Politicking! That's us in a nutshell! Ranged Attackers, crafters and gatherers come join the Holy Magicks company based out of High Road. Our main motto is "Death Thru Superior Fire Powers!"
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Lisa's recent post eludes to the possibility that GW will be taking another look at their plans for WoT, based largely on the feedback from this thread (I would imagine).

I'm wiling to wait and see what they put out by Tuesday or Wednesday.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
Cambion
Jokken
HardinSteele
All the tower changes mean is that you might not get to spend your experience now on what you want. The XPs will continue to accumulate, and at worst you have to train up later on when you can build your own settlement and towers are long gone and irrelevant. The drama is silly. Settlements will not explode in a negative tower eruption of "not enough towers". Go out and talk to your allies. If you don't have allies, make some. If you are not nice enough company to be able to work with other people, you have a problem.

Not having enough towers will not be the end of the world, and these release notes are for the test server, and not the live server. Chill out people.

What it means is that those of us that have the numbers will have training. Those who do not, will either join those who do or quit in frustration. Once the winners and losers in this situation has been determined the winners will crush the losers to an even greater degree as the winners will have superior training and gear. I don't like either option, honestly.

It just appears to be a Railroading mechanism . Due to current placeholder mechanics and lazy or yet unimplemented design. I think the focus should be on what is working well and what the player base are enjoying doing.

Lets see what comes out of the Test Server , but kicking the current player base is not the answer. What Jokken says makes sense , what the poster he is responding to says doesn't based on the current post by Ryan if you do the maths.

At the moment the reason things are failing is because there's little game play, lack of population for the world size or fun in towers. I think there's so much potential here that is being missed lets hope for a positive outcome.
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.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post