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.

The new support system Lee mentioned, some thoughts

Brighthaven Leader
The new durability system says that each item, with durability, in the game is tied to a building in your settlement, and for every level increase on that building you reduce the durability loss of those items. So, if you don't have the proper support you lose 6 durability every time you die, but if you have a level 6 building, you only lose 1 durability like normal.

You can listen HERE starting at 53 mins

I have been going over all the potential issues that this new system and I would like to point out a fairly big problem:

You have essentially redesigned the system back into the exact issue we have been moving away from. Originally things changed quite a bit due to the fact that the support mechanic didn't allow for robust groups of people to play together, and limited friends/families options when joining the game together, I believe we are right back where we started.

If my settlement can only support X buildings, and only so many levels of each building, and can only build so many buildings at once, certain characters will be disadvantaged. If I am a large settlement, sure we can mitigate half of the durability loss, maybe more where we focus, but on everything? What if you are a small settlement, the exact settlement that Lee gave the example about, the divine one. How can they support a robust collective, if only a few people can keep their durability loss down, while others are suffering?

Then we have the exact same situation that was explained by quite a few people before: Within Alliances you will have certain settlements focus on certain buildings, and large groups of people will have to leave and join those settlements, so that they don't lose so much durability. Essentially, making each settlement extremely focused, so that everyone can sustain themselves in combat.

The only way I can see this working is if every single item is matched to quite a few buildings, the amount of raw resources are increased across the board, and crafting times are devastating low.

As much as you want the gear to break, and churn to happen, why not just introduce the threading mechanic, and take us back to the previous support mechanics, it will practically do the exact same thing that this new design seems to go towards.
Brighthaven is a Neutral Good settlement focused on defending its citizens and its allies from negative fringe based PvP (Player Killing and Griefing) while striving to become a large and shining beacon for Good. Whether you wish to benefit from this protection or you love PvP and wish to assist in providing this protection, Brighthaven aims to be the home and support center for you!
Dreamslinger
This seems like it would potentially make it difficult for multi-class characters to find a settlement that has the buildings they need to minimize the hits to durability. This seems like the sort of thing that will push people towards even more homogenized builds as settlements are trying to maintain efficiency.
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Although I didnt listen to the chat, it sounds like a weird system to me. I could understand why item quality woukd impact durability, but not why the same item would decay faster or slower dependent on who was using it or what settlement they come from.
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
Thod-Theodum
So in a nutshell

Big settlement with lots of resources = small decay
Small settlement with minimal resources = large decay

This really will be a problem if someone wants to build up a new settlement. I don't think this will be positive for the game. Thanks Cheatle to bring this one up. Haven't listened to it - so my simplification above might be off.
Thod/Theodum are the OOC/IC leaders of the Emerald Lodge - a neutral settlement in the center of the mal that tries to the first to explore the Emerald Spire - should that part of the game ever become available. We have a strong in game and out of game relationship with the Pathfinder Society.
We welcome both hard core players as well as casual players with or without tabletop experience. We have a strong group in Europe and are slowly expanding into the US. We are predominately PvE as our neutral political stance means that we tend to use PvP only in self-defence. We are not anti-PVP - but expect limited PvP opportunity with us.
Seraph
I don't see any reason to penalize small settlements by making their gear decay faster, which compounds with their already-lower ability to craft replacements. I agree with Cheatle, this is a bad idea.
Seraph
Cleric of Sarenrae
Brighthaven
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I wonder if it would be better to assign initial durability based on something like 1/2 crafting level. A settlement with level 20 armoursmith would create armour with 10 durability, while a settlement with level 12 would create armour with 6 durability. Then settlements could specialize their production and obtain better grade finished goods elsewhere without having to live-where-they-work.

edit: It could also be 1/4, and inherit half of it's durability from the refined goods, so that quality refining would also play a role.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Thod-Theodum
@Cal
At the moment a rank 20 building allows

a) faster crafting
b) crafting of goods you can't craft in a rank 10 building
c) higher training

Isn't that enough. Do we also have to say that the T2 longsword lasts double?

Oh - and no - I'm not afraid of EL why I say this. Our Smithy is planned to be top notch. But just the whole idea seems so absolutely wrong.
Thod/Theodum are the OOC/IC leaders of the Emerald Lodge - a neutral settlement in the center of the mal that tries to the first to explore the Emerald Spire - should that part of the game ever become available. We have a strong in game and out of game relationship with the Pathfinder Society.
We welcome both hard core players as well as casual players with or without tabletop experience. We have a strong group in Europe and are slowly expanding into the US. We are predominately PvE as our neutral political stance means that we tend to use PvP only in self-defence. We are not anti-PVP - but expect limited PvP opportunity with us.
vyal
If the design goal of durability loss or item damage is to consume resources, there's a much easier way to do it than this.

Implement the already designed item repair mechanic, and have that repair mechanic consume raw or refined resources commensurate with the design goal target.

That's really all there is to it. Of course, we'd have to know what the design goal target is, to be certain. smile
Nihimon
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I wonder if it would be better to assign initial durability based on something like 1/2 crafting level. A settlement with level 20 armoursmith would create armour with 10 durability, while a settlement with level 12 would create armour with 6 durability. Then settlements could specialize their production and obtain better grade finished goods elsewhere without having to live-where-they-work.

edit: It could also be 1/4, and inherit half of it's durability from the refined goods, so that quality refining would also play a role.

This doesn't create an incentive for folks to build structures in their own Settlement.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
coach
slightly out of context

Lee said this AFTER he mentioned the fairness of giving everyone level 20 support

so he threw small settlements a bone right before by saying that everyone will be able to support level 20 regardless of how engaged and populous in the game they are

and the benefits of being a little larger would swap over to the durability issue

so if this is crowdforged back to status quo then we are back at square one with small settlements not being viable because they cant support or train

ask the small settlements which they would want, level 20 support or a lil more durability loss

it would probably be unanimous which they would choose

and he said that the items would be tied to EITHER the building that made the item OR a building that represents the usage of said item

i think it is actually a genius move

plus it adds a sink

so I am with GW on this one

i'd say implement it and tweak back little by little if it is too harsh
coach
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post