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.
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.
Thannon Forsworn
Not so sure, I feel that the population is neither dense nor widespread enough to be approaching the level of settlement to settlement conflict they initially imagined. Shrinking the number of active settlements may only spread us even farther apart from one another, creating far too much buffer room.
Thannon Forsworn
Master of Trade
Canis Castrum
Thannon.Forsworn@gmail.com
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.
Tuoweit
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.

Right now there is no restriction on who can use a settlement's facilities. As far as I'm aware, as long as both your home settlement and the training settlement have the required number of towers, you can train there even if your home settlement doesn't normally offer that kind of training. Thus, there are other settlements that would be able to train your people, as long as you have a strong home settlement of ANY type.
markelphoenix
Lets get this back on track. When can we expect to see rogues buffed? :-p
Thannon Forsworn
Tuoweit
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.

Right now there is no restriction on who can use a settlement's facilities. As far as I'm aware, as long as both your home settlement and the training settlement have the required number of towers, you can train there even if your home settlement doesn't normally offer that kind of training. Thus, there are other settlements that would be able to train your people, as long as you have a strong home settlement of ANY type.

Last I heard the only factor affecting your training was the number of towers your settlement held. No matter where you went (aside from NPC towns maybe?) your settlement's towers are what dictate your limitations.
Thannon Forsworn
Master of Trade
Canis Castrum
Thannon.Forsworn@gmail.com
Duffy Swiftshadow
Ortallus
Frankly, I think the opinions have been pretty balanced, and if they fold on this before they even let it roll out, I will lose a lot of the faith in the company that I've been suggesting others hold on to.

GW theoretically discusses these things at length before hand, taking into account the forums before making the decisions. Then they release the information, and the people that are the most pissed off get the most vocal for a while. So if GW simply backs down without putting the system in operation, at least for a while, then that means that they have no faith in their OWN decisions, or that they're not confident enough in those decisions to make a game that's best for EVERYONE and not just the angry mob.

I'm not a huge fan of PvP. I do think that it needs to be part of this game, on some level, though. People, including you Bluddwolf, I believe, have been asking for "meaningful PvP". Well, this is GW's effort at delivering what you asked for. So either their effort fails, or their players fail. If it's the players I can deal. If it's the company making the game, then this, as so many others, will fall down the path of not having faith in decisions and giving the players TOO MUCH voice.

Or at least giving certain voices too much credence.

I want to be incredibly clear: If this change persists to live absolutely nothing will change in the SW corner of the map. The same number of people will control the same number of towers, work out of the same settlements, and continue to pursue the same activities we are already doing in the same unified manner. The only difference will be some technicalities concerning where our membership resides on paper. We have done the math, to truly break the current game state would require some changes that would have even worse ramifications across the board. I am telling you without a shadow of a doubt these proposed changes will do nothing useful: at best nothing really changes and at worst you force more people out or give them a sour taste, which will only translate into bad publicity. Nothing we asked for will be delivered by this because the very thing they are changing is something we didn't ask for (and is a temporary stopgap at that) and quite possibly inherently flawed.

That aside, the very implication that faith and some sort of inherent infallibility instead of facts should drive development is scary to me. Do you honestly believe there is absolutely no chance that a piece of information that 20 people agreed on is flawed? That exposing information to hundreds has zero chance of producing an example that negates that information or puts it in a new light? The very fact that 'crowdforging' is a thing they are doing seems to indicate they believe otherwise.
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.
Ortallus
Your tone is confrontational and condescending, Duffy, so I'm just going to move on without further response.
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