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.

Has PFO lost its direction?

Tyncale
I am not sure about a wealth-wipe. It is true that a real big influx of new players could quickly trivialize the amount of wealth that has been gathered so far, but I also think that many of those new players will actually flock to one these rich landowners that have huge piles of Bulk Goods and spare recipes to hand out. So the wealth they gathered in an empty game that was mostly devoid of conlict in the last 9 months will actually skew the settlement populations in their favor too.

That just does not sound all right to me. Mind you, I would be hit by a Wealth wipe too, being a Holding owner. But I think something may be done about those stockpiles.
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Quijenoth Starkiller
Duffy Swiftshadow
I don't like it that much myself but it's still a better solution than just picking a random number. At least it reflects the possibly ever changing scope. They can either scale it with reality once in awhile, they can pick a random number, or totally avoid basing things on stuff like that at all. If they choose the random number it needs to hold true forever. Let's say 100 people are required, 200 make it trivial. Why is that better than today? How are you going to pick that balancing point? Where is the magic population number that is balanced forever?

Whatever random number is your base, anyone that can't hit it will never achieve anything, those that can hit it will 'be challenged', and those that can surpass it will trivialize it. How do you set that number in a meaningful way when the primary component of your formula is not in your control in any way shape or form?

About the only solution is to try and hard cap the requirement at something that is fairly 'reasonable' to accomplish at which point it's just a shell game of rearranging your X number of players into sub groups to maximize the math in your favor. Thus circumventing the whole thing. Cause that hasn't already been a thing in PFO…

As I said a few thousand times, it's almost like trying to base limitations in a sandbox on player population is a fool's errand. There are better ways that will scale regardless of active population and entirely removes these sort of concerns.

Random numbers would work for the short term, the design goal of T3 when we reach 1 year never surfaced, issues and funding made that fail but instead of capping the game they let us continue, shoehorning in whatever T3 content they could to keep us happy.

Personally I would rather they capped us at T2 until T3 was ready, but it was not my decision.

in the long term settlements need their own challenges to maintain player levels. settlements should have requirements such as costs for sanitation thats only paid for by taxing its members, failure to pay the sanitation could introduce a pestilance effect affecting the settlement offering new challenges for the people who live their, it could be a temporary debuff for all members until a cure is found.

there are many things that could affect a settlement, fire, flood, earthquake, etc are all possible barriers the game might impose. as a numbers game it may be that a settlement actually needs to stop recruiting in fear of inflicting too many taxes on their people. and then there's war with other settlements.

Lets discuss war, war is fundamentally about control, greed and resources. PFO was so focused on balance that the only reason to war against someone is because of a clash of personalities. Imagine if, in order to build a level 5 library, EL had to control a mountain hex, their closest being on ZKM but all of them where controlled by golgotha, would they negotiate a trade deal or would they fight for that hex? it would certainly be a lot more interesting than warring someone because he killed my friend while he was AFK or because he typed bad words to me on the forums!

The game right now is too balanced to be an effective living and breathing economy, resources are everywhere and none are really controllable by others, T3 are more limited but by being forced into monster hexes they can never be truly controlled by one settlement or the other without creating unnecessary drama and confrontation.
Quijenoth Starkiller Viceroy of Callambea
Company Leader of Beyond the Grave - www.beyond-pfo.com
Crafting Planner
Decius
Ravenlute
Bob
Decius
How hard would it be to make nodes spawn towards the center of encounter sites, and make gathering break stealth?

Making gathering break stealth would probably be pretty easy, though it is kind of nice to give gatherers an excuse to learn stealth. With a little extra work, we could probably make something a bit more complicated, more like a percentage chance of breaking stealth for each second spent gathering. Long-term, I've always wanted to make gatherers generate a random amount of noise every so often while gathering, with louder noises alerting mobs further away. Would certainly add some tension.

Making them spawn in the center of encounter sites would be a bit harder, but certainly possible.

Characters that invest in making their Role a Gatherer shouldn't be forced to constantly fight to do their job though. Spawning a few mobs to attack them while gathering is one thing (Age of Conan did this), but sticking nodes in groups and not allowing stealth is entirely different. That would be saying that a combat character could go out and fight things solo but a gatherer would never be able to solo gather.

If stealthing is a problem then bounty hunters need to invest in perception.
Why shouldn't gatherers have to fight, or partner with someone who does?
Gross
Decius
Why shouldn't gatherers have to fight, or partner with someone who does?

More to the point why should they. It's like saying crafters need to fight while crafting. My gatherer does fight and my fighter gathers but that is my play style.
Mercenary monster hunter from Forgeholm
War priest of Angradd… patiently waiting on Goblinworks to deliver him (and greataxes, Dwarves need 2 handed axes).
Tyncale
Thinking about the current unbalance (or overbalance) and possible wipes of stockpiles, I think it would be a better approach from NewCorp if they would give us the tools to reshuffle that wealth, asap. This is a game where you would want to keep the Hand of God (dev-interference) away as often as you can, and let the players put things "right".

But for now, way too many tools are missing and/or lacking for that.

Cost of upkeep should go up, training support should go down, settlements needs many more tools so they can tax players, ask money for training and put players on kos lists, Reputation should start to matter again, Sieges, and so forth. Holdings should start to matter more for Companies that own them and not just be faucets for a settlement.

Btw, I always wondered why upkeep for ++ Holding is so expensive compared to upkeep for a whole settlement. Are those numbers still right in the source-docs? The Upkeep for +5 holding is like "Bulk Food 29, Bulk Wood 29, Bulk Ore 28" and all you get for that is training up to level 14 (which is completely useless at the moment, the easy way settlements can provide for this) and a rather tiny bonus to Bulk Goods. I am sure this has been proposed sometime already but maybe a high level holding could actually raise the yield of regular nodes in the Hex? Or other benefits that tie directly into the Hex itself. That would make the upkeep cost more in line, imo.
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Decius
Gross
Decius
Why shouldn't gatherers have to fight, or partner with someone who does?

More to the point why should they. It's like saying crafters need to fight while crafting. My gatherer does fight and my fighter gathers but that is my play style.

Because escalations have for a very long time been intended to affect resource gathering in the hex.
Midnight
Add me to the crowd that thinks you should invest in perception if stealth gatherers are a problem for you.

The players calling for monster patrols to deter gatherers are some of the same players who won the debate about not wanting to patrol their holdings (during feuds during their self-selected PvP windows). GW handed them the win on that debate with guards and timers to act as alarms, thus freeing those players to do escalations instead of patrolling their holdings.

Now some of those same players want to keep intruding gatherers from escalations, but Escalations aren't CLAIMABLE by any game mechanic whatsoever.

I think it is perfectly fair that if players want to oppose gathering that they put in the same effort as the gatherers. That means traveling to the hexes and being in the hexes where you oppose gathering. And if those hexes are escalations, I don't think anyone deserves the monster patrols or guards to act as deterrents, nor do I think they deserve any automated alarm system.

I do, however, understand that it is currently too easy to deplete the Tier 3 mats in an escalation hex. What we need is a much longer gather time (at least in escalation hexes, and maybe all hexes) so players can be detected and thwarted by actual PLAYERS rather than making the PvE more hazardous. I wouldn't oppose making gathering (or at least T3 gathering) take 100 times longer than it does now.

Understand that making PvE more hazardous for unescorted gatherers is being pushed by the blob because it is blob friendly. They've noticed a section of the game that is lone wolf friendly and want to squash that by turning it into forced grouping.

While my proposal also incentivizes gatherers to have armed escorts (due to the threat of PvP interrupting them), it still allows gatherers to lone wolf if they learn that their opposition is too lazy to show up. I want PLAYERS to thwart and deter gatherers, not robot guards and not robot monsters.

Slower gathering speeds ought not harm gatherer income, because mats should become more valuable under such a game mechanic.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Garric Orcsbane
Please no. Gathering is already boring and that would just make it 100 times more boring.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Midnight
What we need is a much longer gather time (at least in escalation hexes, and maybe all hexes) so players can be detected and thwarted by actual PLAYERS rather than making the PvE more hazardous.
Maybe. But the fraction of server population who find gathering worthwhile is probably already on the low end. Slowing it down, without adding something to it, would probably make that worse. Maybe have the gathering sound audible to players, and leave the monsters out of it? It would give people a reason to turn the game sounds back on.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Paddy Fitzpatrick
@Midnight

I actually do agree woth most of the whole making things more difficult for gsthering. I support monstere that move around and have AI but that is to make PvE escalations more interesting to fight. It should not be to target gstherers explicitly.

As far as depleting stuff goes, i think what should happen is make it take a lot longer for the layers beyond the top one to get depleted. People who wanna strip mine should be forced to make a day of it and have to do it as an op, not just something you wander in and do at your leisure. Keep the top layer the same so ya dont have a huge influx of top grade resources but uo the times on the other ones abd make each layer take more time than the last.

Seems like it takes a long time to regrow and very little time to wreck it. Change that to make it take a while for both and then it should work out just fine.

Also, dont make stealth even more useless, it aint very useful for much anyway bewides gsthering apparently. Sure aint useful for sneaking in other places as we have found diring banditing stskeouts. Why would ya nerf something that already sucks?

@Quijenoth

What kind of balance are ya talkin about? Not sure what you're getting at, much less what you're proposing to change.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post