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.

Concerns over Settlement Costs

Quijenoth
Takasi
Quijenoth we can place higher plus buildings if we wanted to but that doesn't mean we have to keep every building at +3, +4 or even +5 support. The plan is to be able to upgrade and downgrade weekly with the buildings placed being the hard cap.

Settlements can feed their buildings at 0/+3, 1/+3, 2/+3, etc. (or 0/+4 or 0/+5). It might even be more efficient in the future because there are times today a settlement will raise itself to 16 or higher when in reality there may only be one or two people training one or two skills in that settlement. It would be cheaper to just raise that one building up that week and lower the ones not in demand.

Agreed and thats good settlement management but that doesn't change the fact that right now, ALL settlements could be getting all +5s with all feeds for a fraction of the intended costs. The only reason we aren't seeing level 20 settlements is because no-one has the XP for it.

I would set Callambea to 20 (once I finish our last few buildings) just for the facility level increase on crafting times (and I have the bulk to do it) but I just don't feel like its the right thing to do. Mats and recipes aside, I feel like it just cheapens the importance of T3 as an endgame mechanic. instead of 1 or 2 settlements that can offer T3 we have every settlement doing it.
Takasi
Decius
I truly hope that there's some disincentive to training up only one week every two months. Support being required, or not being freely able to downgrade and upgrade settlement structures for free, or upkeep costs being based on maximum level…

Rather than a stick there should be a carrot. I'm hoping settlement structures provide some type of settlement wide bonus. I was actually in favor of changing durability so that it ties in with settlement support, but they could do other things like activating bonus keywords, power and/or stamina discounts, or put ammunition in the game and reduce ammo costs. Facility rating is also a huge incentive.

Although TBH the current population should hopefully only be 5% at most of what we'll see in the first year after a new developer takes over. A valid strategy for a settlement would be to forego pumping mats into building upgrades and instead make gear for incoming players who primarily want to PvP. Those players will not care at all about needing more than +2 buildings for a very long time.
Quijenoth
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I don't see the upside to an artificial cap.
The upside is balance. If everything stays the same for the next year everyone playing from the first 3 months of EE will be T3 enabled.

If the design intent is to make T3 rare and hard to come by, when they switch on building support for intended population as it grows, the existing settlements may well see all those players shift into one settlement because no-one else can support it. Now that's a pretty far fetched scenario I know, given the past conflicts and clash of personalities, but if one settlement starts to pull ahead of the rest, people that are looking for the top end will flock to that settlement.

If T3 becomes the norm the only 2 ways I can see to deal with it is;
1) take away everyone's ability to make T3 and start over, or
2) introduce a T4
Duffy Swiftshadow
Quijenoth
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I don't see the upside to an artificial cap.
The upside is balance. If everything stays the same for the next year everyone playing from the first 3 months of EE will be T3 enabled.

If the design intent is to make T3 rare and hard to come by, when they switch on building support for intended population as it grows, the existing settlements may well see all those players shift into one settlement because no-one else can support it. Now that's a pretty far fetched scenario I know, given the past conflicts and clash of personalities, but if one settlement starts to pull ahead of the rest, people that are looking for the top end will flock to that settlement.

If T3 becomes the norm the only 2 ways I can see to deal with it is;
1) take away everyone's ability to make T3 and start over, or
2) introduce a T4

Or just add threading and solve the problem as originally intended…
Takasi
Quijenoth
I would set Callambea to 20 (once I finish our last few buildings) just for the facility level increase on crafting times (and I have the bulk to do it) but I just don't feel like its the right thing to do. Mats and recipes aside, I feel like it just cheapens the importance of T3 as an endgame mechanic. instead of 1 or 2 settlements that can offer T3 we have every settlement doing it.

To be fair Quijenoth if anyone asked "why are you paying $15 a month for this game in such an unpolished, uncertain and understaffed state" what would you say to them? Don't you feel there are still rewards and a game we were promised that hasn't been delivered yet? We still only have three races, four core classes, no factions and the things we are purchasing will more than likely radically change over time.

By the time new developers join a day one player will have sunk $300 into this game. Can you point to any game on the market today where anyone pays $300 and gets a hard cap of 14 out of 20 on end game content?
Takasi
And Quijenoth T3 will never be the norm. Not taking into account the queue times, the current population cannot continue to be the norm. We should be a very small subset of players if new development continues.
Quijenoth
I know I'm probably on the losing side on this argument, after all we all like nice shiny things… If someone gave you a supercar to drive to work for a week for free and said they would pick it up, if they didn't turn up who wouldn't continue driving it to work for the following week smile

PFO is a unique case, its not like other MMOs where they released a new boss with a glitch that let you kill it with 1 person instead of a full raid, sure there getting nice loot earlier than the rest but in the end the bar will raise and those items will lose value. In PFO its about creating a living breathing community and economy and T3 is the raid loot, if its value diminishes there's nothing around to replace it.
Quijenoth
Takasi
And Quijenoth T3 will never be the norm. Not taking into account the queue times, the current population cannot continue to be the norm. We should be a very small subset of players if new development continues.

we'll be small but we'll be 2 years ahead of the majority, making us more important for at least another year. T3 production will be 1 year long before it will start to get used by the majority. how many T3 longbows can you make in that time?

And threading will help if we ever get it, but that only affects gear churn. You still have too many people who can make the stuff.
Takasi
Nothing about this game is seen as a supercar. It's beyond what most would call a beater. It's frequently balked at by shoppers as a lemon. It might be sold for parts, junked for scrap or pushed off a cliff by hooligans. Yet I'm still rooting for this love bug.
Decius
There will be characters that use t3+5 equipment on a daily basis. They will go out with a group of affordably equipped characters to protect them, and will on occasion be out numbered, outmaneuvered, or make a mistake and lose durability or equipment.

A 50/50 chance at a 75% chance of an Avenger's greatsword is worth three durability hits on a group of six in full t2 kit. If t3 weapons and armor can't be fully threaded, banditry on groups of t3 escalation runners can be outright profitable.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post