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.

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.
Azure_Zero
Ortallus
markelphoenix
Honey in Stead of Vinegar:

Leave the number of towers the same as they are currently in EE3.

Add a mechanic, so that every tower beyond X towers, you gain y amount of Knowledge AND Gathering as a bonus for all members. This would give an incentive for people to become 'more engaged' with towers, given that the primary benefit of owning a bunch of towers now is raising your training capabilities, which are largely an allowance for 'down the road' given xp being the primary 'delay' from being able to use that extra training ceiling.

This would give tangible reasons for everyone to participate, knowing that they will increase their gathering / drop-rates-from-mobs by being more aggressive in the war. This further helps by pushing forward the economic seeding that we're suppose to be doing, given that we are the pioneers and seedlings for the robust economy that is suppose to develop from our gardening efforts.

One could also consider adding an Encumbrance bonus from owning towers, this would also help in the movement of supplies, encouraging people to carry larger loads, which means more attractive PVP targets if you can catch someone moving material.

Given that the War of Towers is temporary AND the fact that we are in the seeding stage of the game world, it makes sense to me to incentivize not penalize to get this war going.smile

I agree other than the fact that the big 2 would receive the vast majority of this boost, and incentivize people moving to them.

Yep the two largest settlements would get one hell of a boost, and new players would flock to them,
Hence why my example equation before only gave smaller settlements the boost, with the biggest needing to choose.
Sspitfire1
@ folks who welcome the new expendables, I repeat:

EDIT: TL;DR: Under the current system, there is no "I win" button. It doesn't matter if I get lucky and get the good attack off at the beginning of the fight. The other guy can still catch up and beat me. Under this revised system, the winner will be the one who gets lucky and pops off that one, ruinous attack that leaves their opponent stricken and vulnerable for the next 5 rounds. Under the current system, we can have balanced, close fights. Under the new system, one-sided is going to be the new norm. To add insult to injury, we will all be playing at Monotony spamming our interrupts, etc to try and keep the doom-attacks and godly-buffs at bay.

The current game is balanced and any player who is good enough to figure out how to effectively use the limited buffs and debuffs has a serious edge over the competition. The new system will break this balance and basically make it a "I beat you to the punch therefore I win" system. It won't be as fun as you think.

@ "I'm forgetting about EPOW and EPRO" - I'm not. Someone in T2 armor is still going to have their attack stats cut down by 50 points when they get hit with 1 Blinding Dust AND they are still going to take the full 100 points of acid damage. By the way, 50 points knocked off of your attack stats is the rough equivalent of being knocked back into the previous tier. For 10 power AND it is spammable.

I don't think yall understand just how much power a Rogue will actually have. They get Cleric-level power bonus from matching armor keywords AND each rank of Power adds 12 points- so 16 Ranks of Power + Rogue Armor on a Level 8 rogue in T2 armor means that rogue can spam that attack for a good 35 rounds straight. Even a Fighter at Level 8 is going to be able to spam their Fluster and Bully attacks for a good 25 rounds before running out of power, if they have invested in Rank 16 of Power (and who wouldn't, now!?).

@Debuff recovery: THERE IS NONE. If you get hit with 3 rounds of Opportunity from me, you're only option is to sit it out while I tear your character to pieces. Likewise, 100 Oblivious or 100 Frightened is only going to go away as fast as your Recovery bonus allows- which will take 7 rounds with a 15 Recovery rate. Oh, and I'll be refreshing those stacks every 2 rounds, so don't get too hopeful there.

Shrug Off is the only thing that helps with stacks; but it only helps with a very select few types of stacks (namely Bleed and Slow). But even Shrug Off is a meager 10 to 15 stacks per use and only one class has reliable access to it. Cleric can "spam" Shrug Off using Inspiring Word. But if you want to use it, that means you are having to spend your whole round and all of your stamina trying to "recover" from someone's skill-less OP smack in the face- while they are tearing you to pieces.

@ Longbow exploit comment: Stephen has already fixed the exploits. They now apply stacks and other goodies instead of +40 base damage. *That* is a welcome change.

@Kradlum, but now you get 600 hp AND 8 rounds of Fast Healing with Augment, not to mention the opportunity to use another now-OP Fighter Maneuver- Endanger with its 3 rounds of Flat-Footed. Even against an opponent in T2 armor and you slotting your Rogue Feature, Kradlum, you will still get roughly 1.5 rounds of Endanger, allowing you to capitalize on any number of very fast lightblade attacks (4 Shanks ftw). You could switch over to Rogue Maneuvers; but you'd just be giving up a massive heal and plenty of Fighter maneuvers that are just as useful to you- like Fluster (1.5 rounds of Dazed and Unbalanced, the perfect setup for Pommel-Shiv-Shiv-Pommel). In fact, what you are best off doing is going Dragoon, Heavy Armor, Light Blade Specialization, and dual-daggers for one weapon and a shortbow for the other. Combine them with MoO's, Bulwark, and Bravery and rock on.

The updated sheets are where they always have been: Copy of PFO Wiki - Official Data from the Devs
Gog
Sspitfire1
Under the current system, there is no "I win" button. It doesn't matter if I get lucky and get the good attack off at the beginning of the fight. The other guy can still catch up and beat me. Under this revised system, the winner will be the one who gets lucky and pops off that one, ruinous attack that leaves their opponent stricken and vulnerable for the next 5 rounds. Under the current system, we can have balanced, close fights. Under the new system, one-sided is going to be the new norm. To add insult to injury, we will all be playing at Monotony spamming our interrupts, etc to try and keep the doom-attacks and godly-buffs at bay.

I've just looked through the latest expendables data and I completely agree with Sspitfire. There's a delicate middle ground in ability design between not enough impact, and too much. The new expendables trample past that middle ground like an elephant who smells peanuts and head straight into overpowered+mandatory territory. If the victor of a fight is determines solely by who burns more power on expendables, I don't think that's any better for the game than the current state where they add nothing of value to the standard attacks.

If we're going to keep expendables this strong, they need longer casting times and spotlight effects saying "interrupt me!" Probably also need something like a 30-second GCD on all expendables and a 5-minute cooldown on each individual spell.
^This is Dak (Charlie George). RIP <Guurzak>
Sspitfire1
Azure_Zero
Ortallus
markelphoenix
Yep the two largest settlements would get one hell of a boost, and new players would flock to them,
Hence why my example equation before only gave smaller settlements the boost, with the biggest needing to choose.

Azure, small settlements were never meant to survive in this game.
Sspitfire1
Guurzak
Sspitfire1
Under the current system, there is no "I win" button. It doesn't matter if I get lucky and get the good attack off at the beginning of the fight. The other guy can still catch up and beat me. Under this revised system, the winner will be the one who gets lucky and pops off that one, ruinous attack that leaves their opponent stricken and vulnerable for the next 5 rounds. Under the current system, we can have balanced, close fights. Under the new system, one-sided is going to be the new norm. To add insult to injury, we will all be playing at Monotony spamming our interrupts, etc to try and keep the doom-attacks and godly-buffs at bay.

I've just looked through the latest expendables data and I completely agree with Sspitfire. There's a delicate middle ground in ability design between not enough impact, and too much. The new expendables trample past that middle ground like an elephant who smells peanuts and head straight into overpowered+mandatory territory. If the victor of a fight is determines solely by who burns more power on expendables, I don't think that's any better for the game than the current state where they add nothing of value to the standard attacks.

If we're going to keep expendables this strong, they need longer casting times and spotlight effects saying "interrupt me!" Probably also need something like a 30-second GCD on all expendables and a 5-minute cooldown on each individual spell.

Thank you! Someone who understands.
markelphoenix
In reply to the sky is falling on expendables, it just means we have to have counters. People will just need to use Tokens and Abilities that relate to removing/countering those debuffs?

Don't want -50 Attack? Have someone Buff you the +30 Attack and then you already mitigated -30 of that from one buff. Now look at tokens that help against debuffs and any other abilities designed to counter/recover/heal/boost-defense/boost-attack, and you start having a MUCH more interesting game that makes people consider counter-actions as opposed to just shrugging off.
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.
Sspitfire1
markelphoenix
In reply to the sky is falling on expendables, it just means we have to have counters. People will just need to use Tokens and Abilities that relate to removing/countering those debuffs?

Don't want -50 Attack? Have someone Buff you the +30 Attack and then you already mitigated -30 of that from one buff. Now look at tokens that help against debuffs and any other abilities designed to counter/recover/heal/boost-defense/boost-attack, and you start having a MUCH more interesting game that makes people consider counter-actions as opposed to just shrugging off.

As Guurzak pointed out, what you are saying is exactly what Stephen has wanted to avoid in this game: Buffs being mandatory just so you can dig out of a whole made by someone's debuff.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post