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.

Post Cataclysm thought.

Caldeathe Baequiannia
Avari (elswhere)
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.
That would be the slightly more blunt version of my feelings.

Whether it's Pre, or Post apocalypse, empty settlements should not be reassigned, they should be temporarily overwritten with escalations. Better yet, when the cataclysm comes, overwrite every settlement site with an escalation, and don't let anyone build anything until they have cleared the site. Warn us it's coming, and let everyone make a fresh choice of where to go.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Wedj
While I see your logic, complete and utter destruction would piss off a lot of people who have collected and refined materials or stockpiled crafted goods since utter destruction would mean all the settlement banks would be gone as well.

I could see something that puts escalations near settlements and if not taken care of would "lock down" a settlement. If one is locked down long enough, then the settlement would be destroyed and the land could be claimed for a new settlement.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I'd be willing to forgo banked materials as part of the cataclysm, but on the presumption that lots wouldn't, so the hex has nothing bu a bank, locked down by the gnomes inside and over-run by mobs. You have to clear the mobs to get to the bank, and to start building again.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
markelphoenix
Unless I am mistaken, post cataclysm, others can conquer/destroy you. Ergo, no need to do this and simply let the powers in the game fight among themselves.
penguinwitchdoctor
I like Cal's idea. I do not remember reading anything about stored items at OE time frame, and what will happen to them. I think that is still a bit to far out to make big decisions about. I know the devs have plans for it, and they keep talking about wiping out all the settlements. I do like the clearing some mobs/escalation to reclaim your land, and rebuild. This could cause some alliances to be made between smaller settlements and larger settlements. I mean "REAL" alliances. Not just internet hand shaking ones, but Alliances where a larger settlement helps lower population settlements clear their land of the escalation. This will also allow the PVPer's to try and disrupt the clearing of said settlement. With training still allowed in the three major NPC towns. Then the OE newcomers will still be able to train while the Settlements are being cleared out. While all of us near T3 training will have to fight to clear settlements and get training rolling.

My 2 CP's
Ooh ee Ooh ah ah walla walla ting tang.
Kitsune
Catastrophe, not cataclysm. smile

Edit: just read your other response to my mirrored post.
Duffy Swiftshadow
You guys realize the reason people fight you so much on these these ideas is the weird implied vindictiveness to your suggestions that the developers build specific solutions that no dev has ever talked about previously to specifically wipe out struggling folks and force them to join your banners. I can't imagine why they are so resistant to drop everything and join you…

The mechanics and workflow have been outlined, just let it happen the way it was outlined. We knew the risks when they outlined it and we won a spot in Landrush. Moving the goalposts or doing a 180 is just going to burn people. Even if you aren't directly affected by such a suggestion you are advocating that the Devs ignore their own design and willing break their word with the player-base. Think about that.

It will all go down soon enough, no need to get all wrath of god on people.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Everyone is struggling, Duffy, not just the smallest groups. There isn't a single group that fits the minimums Ryan outlined months ago. The entire game is on the line, not just the groups with a dozen or so people. If there is vindictiveness in some of the posts, it's not aimed at the small groups.

That said, I think the majority of the suggestions have been for you to band together among yourselves. I don't think very many people want to see two or three blocks running the map.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
KarlBob
In a situation where combat is being urged on us so strongly it might as well be unavoidable, the minimum viable social group, covering all four combat roles and crafting, is three settlements. If the small settlements start by organizing into trios covering all roles, then they'll have somewhat higher numbers right away. They'll also be able to recruit players interested in any role into their alliance.

"Like clerics? Our Tavernhold settlement might be right for you. A rogue fan? Head on over to Stoneroot Glade. Out to build a commercial empire? Talonguard is where you want to be."

After the big dust-up, settlements won't be locked into such rigid categories, but if they're already cooperating, they can continue to divide the load of training and supporting everything.
Duffy Swiftshadow
I agree we are not where we are supposed to be. But doing things like this are not going to improve it, this is flailing at an unrelated problem and hoping it will fix the general one which is that no one but us wants to play the game. That's the root problem, not enough people want to play right now. Simplifying the game state and espousing constant and nightly fighting is not gonna help. A lot of folks are here specifically because they were sold on that not being the state of the game, they expected nuance and methodical actions. Not capture the hill every single night. We can go play Darkfall or even something like Battlefield for that.

Go count up the settlement members, then break them down evenly, then look at the map and pick the 5 settlements they would fit in (last time I counted you might be able to squeeze 6-7 if you don't mind some smaller ones in the corners). Then start counting empty space between each of them…you will very quickly see the problem with this. Or the other scenario (and our plan if the original WoT changes went through) everyone 'consolidates' and then does exactly what they are doing now living wherever they live now resulting in no change to the game state.

We already banded together, if you think for one moment we work alone in our little corner you are very mistaken. Maybe it would work better if we were all in one settlement, but we're making it work anyways.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post