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.

Making your Settlement Viable - Recruiting

Duffy Swiftshadow
On the topic of recruitment:

The PFO related reditt is dead, and what posts are there are mostly from us folks already involved. Most of the comment threads surrounding PFO on the big MMO sites are best described as 'engines of hatred' towards it with usually a few folks from here defending it. I just read the articles from Ten Ton Hammer about PFO, they are on the colder side of lukewarm to straight up saying 'don't bother'. Massively is probably your best supporter tone wise and the commentators/community there hates you (not as much as they hate Star Citizen though).

Don't get me wrong, we're trying anyways, but there is no magic bullet. We need more features to pull in and retain new folks. There just isn't enough meat for the broader cross section of players out there. And while I'm saying that I know you guys can't just pop features out tomorrow, it's going to take time and I'm fine with that as are I think a lot of us that are already here. What we can do right now is try to get the people we already have in-game into settlements (hopefully increasing retention) and we'll need mechanism and support from GW to make it manageable. (The recent initiatives are a big help, thank you) In turn you need to give us time by not creating mechanics that will reduce diversity and diminish it's potential, that said I think the latest revision to WoT is fine and should accomplish what everyone needs.

As to the WoT/Conflict discussion:

I think the current WoT is just not a fun mechanic. It's either too asynchronous or too tedious to be fun and engaging. Let's use a tower Freevale took from the League as an example, we could easily take it back if we could ever get people on during their PvP window, and they have no chance of defending it. But we can't because we're mostly EST and it's too small a window for our few out of timezone folks to have enough time to take it. On the flip-side defending towers is tedious work, you have a dozen+ people split between towers doing almost nothing for 4+ hours every night in case there is an attack while your core group hangs around somewhere centralized.

Even if we had to fight over towers every night due to shortages is that fun? Most people only get about 4 hours a day to devote to the game and those 4 hours have to be spent fighting (or waiting to fight) over towers that will change hands every other day. What's the point of the tower mechanically if it flip flops every few days? There's almost no benefit to a 'contested' tower until one side is strong enough to permanently hold it (meaning they have indefinitely won for the time being) or one side gives up out of boredom, thus ending the conflict around that tower.

There are two sorts of conflict: incidental (banditry, farming conflicts, opposed factions running into each other, etc… ) and deliberate (what WoT is trying to do, Siege Warfare, Feuds, Assassinations, etc… ). Incidental can exist now it's just rocky. Once specific banditry features, factions, and better identification tools come about it will be fine, there is no philosophical issue there. Deliberate is a different beast, it requires organized groups to come into conflict at specific times and places over specific resources or entities. The problem is frequency and how to declare that time and place. Right now deliberate is lacking, if you want to actually fight your best bet is to tell your opponents when you're coming and give them one or two targets to defend, it's the only way they will have time to show up and put up a reasonable defense. The next issue is frequency, if you need to ward off deliberate attacks every single day it becomes a sheer matter of attrition and burnout. Deliberate conflict needs to be a definitive moment that has lasting consequences but also gives breathing room to suffer or benefit from those consequences. Constructive downtime between moments of conflict is just as important as the conflict itself. Right now our options are either only downtime (because no conflict) or only conflict (no time for downtime). I think this is the root of the problem surrounding WoT.
Some of the problems with recruitment into the In Game Companies and Settlements is there is very little in game benefit right now.

What we need is more mechanical benefits, companies are barely implemented to the point I wouldn't even call them at a Minimum Viable Product level yet.

We NEED Company Chat, preferably both online and offline messaging systems in the game. Settlement chat would also be very desirable. I can wait on Auction House improvements if it gets us these new chat channels, and this is coming from a Harvester and Crafter. We can't even tell who in our company is Online unless we use 3rd party tools (external chat programs) or happen to bump into them in the game.

Company Vaults IMO should be near the top of the priority list as well, or at least some method that allows us to transfer items between characters that aren't both online at the same time. Perhaps In Settlement Mail. (Like the mail systems in other MMOs but can only be received in the settlement it was sent from.)

Personally, I'm not a fan of the WoT for two reasons. One, trying to defend more then a couple towers starts requiring excessively high numbers of people, who will mostly be standing around doing nothing if it turns out nobody is going to attack the tower they are defending. Second, the PvP Windows are being used by some groups not for WoT purposes, but to give them an area for no rep loss PvP, with no intent of taking the tower. They go out looking for harvesters, or people on their own and just gank them. With how long it takes to harvest any reasonable amount of resource, sending defenders out with the harvesters will just make for VERY board defenders unless there IS an attack.
this may have been posted

to increase player "banditry" you could make roads travel x2 of grassland/farms/etc … and road travel x3 of hills and badlands/etc … and road travel x5 of swamps/mountains/etc

wanna move fast then take a chance on roads

wanna mine, then harder to run away

(of course the mobs should be slowed in these areas too unless it is "home" to their species etc … so they dont overwhelm the gatherers)

(and this is from a miner)
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.
I must admit that I am also in the camp of people who does not know anyone who would play this sort of game at the present state it is at. Maybe in a year or two, it might be able to catch the interest of some I know, but right now they'll just think I am crazy.

We're currently in some weird half-ready state where we are trying to balance between PvP-fans and PvP-averse players and both groups are finding the game mediocre. Changes to add conflict over resources drives off smaller groups players who cannot fend for themselves and also marginalizes larger groups who build an identity as PvP-averse (impacting the diversity that is frequently brought up). Changes to add consequences for PvP outside of towers zones drives off PvP-fans who are finding the towers to be lack-luster.

I do not know of any quick features or fixes that would help me draw my friends in. I think War of Towers needs to be adjusted so that instead of training access, some other longer-term benefit is being accrued. That would make them far more valuable.

1) Bludd's idea of DI Tokens would be good. The more towers you hold and the longer you hold them, the more of a head-start your settlement can get when we revert to Keeps and empty plots.
2) Instead of keeping the core six as he suggested, remove them as currently planned. Then the players are responsible for transporting these lootable\tradeable DI Tokens from the more distant Towers to Settlements.
3) Have towers produce X tokens per hour, some small amount. During PvP windows, double, triple, or quadruple the output. Settlements with wider PvP windows can make more per day with the same number of towers. More risk, more reward.
4) Also, during PvP Windows allow for "Raiding" the tower. This would allow a small group to simply steal produced DI Tokens that are in the tower cache waiting for pick-up. They gain the criminal flag for doing so, but they do not need to wait to capture the tower and can just run off with their gains. If a settlement is not keeping up with emptying towers, the raiders could get away with quite a bit! If the settlement is, then the accelerating production rate during the PvP window at least offers the raiders a chance to grab a small amount. A settlement trying to hold on to too many towers may be able to defend from captures, but they become easy targets for these small and fast raids.

Your serious settlements will opt for wider windows, establish transport groups, time tables, guards. Bandits will have a reason to try to jump in and raid the towers or steal from transporters. I think it would really help revitalize the PvP game while providing a more meaningful goal to capturing and maintaining towers. Not only that, it adds more planning fun for how to spend the tokens or what to trade them for.
If WoT was going to be an ongoing game feature, then I could see the value in GW taking people off other parts of game development to change it. At this point though, I can't see them putting the rest of the game on hold to iterate a temporary feature. I think they're limited to modifying the elements (number of towers, effect on training, PvP windows). If they can track total towers held over time, perhaps additional future value could be offered.
Good… Bad… I'm the guy with the bow.
Consider where any active PFO group would be in another 'finished' game right now. That’s what we’re competing with for recruits.
Like it or not, the TL/DR; for PFO is ‘EVE, in a fantasy setting’. That’s not bad, but the gaming public looks around and sees ‘parts on the shelf’ (in the form of existing games), so where is it ? They hear it’s still years away and that gives them a negative vibe. That first impression is often the last time they will consider a game. The market is rich and full.
Full of Technology. Look at Holdings. They go up (and doubtless will go down) via a scripted series of 3D still images, ala old RTS games. But lo, games exist (EQNext) or will exist (Crowfall) where buildings get made and destroyed actively ! Voxel by voxel ! That is a massive tech gap. And the perception is, it’s widening.
So yeah, it is hard to pitch this game right now. After the cataclysm is the earliest I can see anyone I know getting 'hooked'.
Folks currently playing may feel cheated by this idea, but we are already playing so GW doesn’t really need to reach us..
I know the buddy program exist, but I am still not at a point that I would ask any of my friends to play because I know what they are looking for in a game and we are not there yet. Especially when GW is asking a user to “pay” for a game that is not finished and on top of that is asking that user to “pay” a subscription as well.
I know it would take tech and account management time but having a EE 1 character account , that a user pays a sub for during EE that can upgrade to full account by buying the actual game would make more a lot of sense to a user that isn’t quite sure what this game is and is having thoughts like..
” Wait I have to buy it to play it and pay a sub before I even know what the game will look like when finished( if its finished..)”
Anyway just my opinion, give a subscription only access that is somewhat limited in scope, that can be upgraded to full access and folks may feel a bit better about paying for a sub while the game matures and develops( hopefully into something they will want to pay full price for.. )
Ryan Dancey
There's a significant difference between Pathfinder Online and EQNext and Crowfall that outweighs that tech gap.
Quijenoth Starkiller

linking this here as it is kind of relevant
Quijenoth Starkiller Viceroy of Callambea
Company Leader of Beyond the Grave -
Crafting Planner
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post