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?

Caldeathe Baequiannia
Paddy Fitzpatrick
@Cal

I am not sure what you're asking dude, lol.
At the moment, a gatherer has a % chance of getting more than two items in each node they find. For a T3 gather with appropriate feats, it might be 150, added to the best of 3d200. If they roll a 125, and add their 150, that's a roll of 275, which might guarantee they get more than 2 on almost every pull. If the remaining stock in the hex was used as a percentage multiplier against some or all of that, it would reduce the number of times that they get more than two, forcing them to harvest more nodes to get the same thing. By the time it was in the bottom layer (25% of capacity), they'd be going from a final roll of 275 to a final roll of about 70.

If it was only on their bonus, not the roll itself, it would bring the high and low level gatherers closer together as the hex degrades.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Stilachio Thrax
Paddy Fitzpatrick
@everyone

Can someone remind me again about this support thing? I know it was explained to me once a qhile back but i forgot.

Originally, if you didn't belong to a settlement, your skills would be capped at level 8 regardless of how much you had trained in it. So if you had Rank 6 attacks and got booted from your settlement, you now could only use that attack at Rank 3 or 4. This was to reinforce the need to belong to companies and settlements. Additionally, your settlement had to pay for support as well, so in order to use your Rank 6 attack, your settlement had to provide support for it. If it didn't, you could only use the attack at the rank the settlement did provide for.

It has since been changed so that once you train a rank, you can always use it, regardless of settlement support level and whether or not you are in a settlement.

I'm of mixed opinion on the change. I understand the concerns over paying XP for a skill and then being blocked from using it if settlement shenanigans ensued or if you wanted untethered bandit/mercenary companies. However, it would make for more diverse and specialized settlements if you needed to join Ozem's Vigil or Brighthaven if you wanted to be a high-level paladin, but had to join Keeper's Pass to be a high level wizard or Aragon to be a high level rogue. Each settlement would then need to more carefully pick and choose what training to offer, and at what level to support it.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Midnight
First, can people really strip the first layer of T3 in 10 minutes? My t3 gatherer has been luckier than that, but I played her so little that I don't know if it was only luck.

Second, how much slower do you imagine gathering would be with roving monsters?

Because if it turns a 10 minute task into a 20 minute task that isn't going to solve the ninja mining complaints.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Quijenoth Starkiller
Paddy Fitzpatrick
@Quijenoth

What kind of balance are ya talkin about? Not sure what you're getting at, much less what you're proposing to change.

I'm referring to settlement balance. not player balance (although the two are connected).

We have seen balance parses for combat a number of times already much of which came under criticism. with incomplete mechanics its hard to see why they are justified and many considered them a waste of dev time and resources.

with settlements there currently is no balance. 1 person or 100 people can achieve top settlements, my concern is, once they are there how do you re-balance it without upsetting people. This goes back to an old post I made about fixing settlement level to 14, something I tried to encourage the player base to consider until we had the community, population and mechanics to justify reaching the end game. it was a longshot and I understand that people want to be the first to "win" by being the biggest and highest level settlement. hell I still stand by the "server first" achievements I managed to obtain for Callambea and Xeilias.

We are running settlements with skeleton crews and no disadvantages. once those disadvantages come out people will start to moan that they are too harsh or downright unfair, with enough voices (and GWs affinity for keeping people happy) those disadvantages will be reduced or removed until they become insignificant. its happened before with inflated bulk resources, global level 20 support, and increased weight of mules just to name a few.

heres an example of what I mean. (a hypothetical scenario)

    Lets say they introduce taxes. these taxes force settlements to pay 100silver per week for each member of their settlement. The leader decides to apply a tax on members using training within the settlement and a weekly tax of 80 silver to pay for members storage and banking. Settlement a has 10 active people and 200 dead accounts - that means the 10 players will have to find 21 gold per week to maintain their settlement. The settlement is likely to moan and complain the tax levels are unreasonable, with enough backing, the amount is dropped to 10s. Now the settlement only need find 2.1 gold. Still a challenge for 10 people but then they are supporting a settlement designed for 200+

What the devs should be telling them is "shed the dead weight" remove the dead accounts and bring the settlement down or recruit new active members. But GW is happy for them to sit on their thrones free of charge.

Why doesn't this work with bulk you ask? because bulk is automated wealth, apart from the odd haul to town bulk is generated automatically where as coin is only gained by actively playing the game.

Settlement support is a BIG issue for this game, we all agree 20 universal support is breaking the community spirit. why stay loyal to your settlement when you can train anywhere? you cant take it away because it directly affects balancing the game and yet leaving it in offers no value to individual settlements when we can all cover maximum training for every building we choose to build.

My solution would be;

Tax training. multiply the cost to train 100 fold for anyone not of your settlement. It can be gamed by hopping from settlement to settlement of cause but this is only stage 1. (and I have suggested solutions to company hopping many times before)

Tax Support. introduce a cost per player based on the settlement they belong to. If your support is beyond your settlements level then the cost is increased. to maintain support for a role your character pays 10silver per week per tier. if the settlement does not support it the cost is multiplied by 10. failure to pay results in reducing support to the maximum level of the settlement. Failure to pay settlement taxes results in T1 support only.

example -
  • Silandria is a T2 bowyer, Callambea offers support for this role so the cost is 20s to maintain bowyer support If she cannot pay the 20s her support drops to T1
  • Silandria is also a T3 archer. but Callambea does not support a fighter college. In order to maintain her T3 status she would have to pay 300s. If Callambea suddenly built a college offering T2 support the cost would be 120s (10 for the T1, 10 for T2, and 100 for T3)

As you can see for Silandria to operate as a bowyer, Callambea is an ideal place, but to doesn't stop her from being an archer. its just more expensive as the cost to maintain support is beyond her settlement and the cost to train is incredibly high as well.
Further cost reductions could be introduced via alliances or even disguise/stealth. sneaking into a settlement to train or allying with Golgotha to gain support from their fighter college.

One major concern I have with this system is its dependency on money. Therefore I believe there needs to be a system introduced similar to questing.
Settlements set community goals that "pay" for the support and training (set by the buildings they choose to include), not in hard coin but in a form of credit to the settlement. These "quests" are repeatable and should make up the daily life of the character, be it patrolling lands, ridding hexes of infestation (once spreading is back) crafting refined materials to repair/maintain buildings, crafting goods for the auction house, donating items like spells, recipes, materials, codexes, and coin to the settlement vault, and defending territory in feuds and PVP. Thus the more you do for your settlement, the more support it gives you.
Quijenoth Starkiller Viceroy of Callambea
Company Leader of Beyond the Grave - www.beyond-pfo.com
Crafting Planner
Quijenoth Starkiller
I'd like to add that for support to continue in my system payment for the use of training needs to filter into the coffers of that settlement. This would go along way to neutering the animosity of training in enemy settlements.
Quijenoth Starkiller Viceroy of Callambea
Company Leader of Beyond the Grave - www.beyond-pfo.com
Crafting Planner
Tyncale
I think it's closer to 20-30 minutes before the first heavier iterations start to appear, at least that was my experience.

I also remember Lee saying something to the extent that the regular nodes are kind off meant for sole harversters, that are willing to take the risk (not much risk with the current pop though) and that the Gushers were supposed to be the real kicker that should spurn PvP. We have little detail about these gushers but exploiting these surely should be a protracted process that involves Mules, or at least a bunch of High Encumbrance gatherers.

This could be tweaked so that it would take at least 2 hours to deplete such a gusher or even longer.

I think a bigger inflow of T3 resources is needed at some point anyway once churn sets in, the current amounts are maybe enough to keep a hundred people in T3 armor.

Roaming mobs could certainly be an extra detractor though a group of people exploiting a gusher should have no problems with a roaming NPC. I have no idea how much longer roaming mobs wouold make the Gathering proces, depends on the implementation. I always figured these fabled "Meteor"hexes to be ultra dangerous, and not just because you would encounter players there.

I agree that currently skimming the cream of a T3 hex is a way too fast proces.

Also, I know that GW does not want to much "gamey" mechanics like notifications popping up when someone is depleting your Hex, but they may have to look into this anyway. After all, there are 24 hours in a day, and waiting around somewhere for stuff to happen is just not fun.
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)
Duffy Swiftshadow
Stilachio Thrax
It has since been changed so that once you train a rank, you can always use it, regardless of settlement support level and whether or not you are in a settlement.

This part is incorrect, if you are removed from a settlement your feats immediately drop to level 8 training. You only get support to 20 if you are a member of a settlement. I do think crafting somewhat circumvents this, at least when it comes to recipe you can craft, but your skill still drops.
Tyncale
I like that system, Q. Settlements can still be a "best fit" for certain players/Roles, yet players do not have to hop settlements if they want support for their other Roles. Tieing individual player-activity to actually being able to *pay* for those extra roles seems good too, else you'd get very rich settlements that could simply provide all roles for their members, no mattrer the cost of non-supported roles.

You would still get complaints from casuals versus hardcore, where the casuals can not muster up enough Credit/Activity to pay for all the roles that they expended XP on, I think.

I guess people have to learn in PFO, that they may not always be able to use all the skills that they paid for. But that is the real conundrum: with PFO's XP system there is actually a limited amount of XP to go around, for which everyone paid hard dollars, so people feel strongly entitled to be able to put that to use at all times.

Then again, I guess there are people in EVE who have put skillpoints in Skills that they do not use anymore for some reason? Or can they relocate that xp?

DOes GW think it is entirely possible to infuse such an attitude where people are willing to forfeit some of their skills for the greater good(in this case, settlement mechanics)?
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
Midnight
Garric Orcsbane
Please no. Gathering is already boring and that would just make it 100 times more boring.

Even if each mat was worth 100 times more?

I know the act of unopposed gathering can seem boring. But gathering 100 mats worth X in 10 minutes seems just as boring to this t3 gatherer as gathering 1 mat worth 100X in 10 minutes. The latter slows depletion allowing a better chance at interdiction.
The value of each material is the fraction of the finished good that it comprises. To make materials more valuable it is necessary to make gear more valuable, which requires rebalancing attacks and defenses.
Midnight
Tyncale
Also, I know that GW does not want to much "gamey" mechanics like notifications popping up when someone is depleting your Hex, but they may have to look into this anyway. After all, there are 24 hours in a day, and waiting around somewhere for stuff to happen is just not fun.

Just a reminder that no T3 hex is "your hex" according to the game, at least.

So alarms on harvesting wouldn't affect the t3 ninja complaint.

Or if there was a t3 alarm it would have to go to everyone equally.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post