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.

Settlement Warfare is on the March

Edam

I simply cannot see dropping durability doing anything other than lowering demand.

From a personal point of view:
  1. I rarely use T3 gear as it is already uneconomically expensive for anything other than really special situations. If you halved durability I can guarantee I would never use T3 at all.
  2. It might be different if you only play 8 or 10 hours a week and take T3 out "just for giggles and shiney points" but the math is simply unworkable for T3 for a regular player if you lower durability. At half durability if my iconographer ONLY made T3 focuses just for Edam and made nothing else he would not keep up. You may think it is viable to have two crafters for each gear type supplying every combat player but I do not. The reduced durability argument comes from people who run T2/T3 escalations on a casual basis (10 or maybe 20 hours a week) or are exceptionally tanky or take minimal risks.
  3. At Keepers our tailors, artificers, iconographers are all flat out already. If people with a tailor cannot get work they are not trying hard enough. Our main tailor just bought and leveled up a new character as a 2nd T2 tailor because her main T3 tailor never has enough queue time to meet the demand for T2 robes.
  4. Yes some crafts are not busy. There is little demand for bowyers because firstly *no-ammo and secondly no-one uses the bows themselves much (except shortbow daredevils) because *bows-nerfed. Also Armorsmith (exception T3 lvl 16+ Armorsmiths) and Weaponsmiths can both struggle because EVERYONE that uses a martial weapon has ranks in one of those or often both. There are very few ways to get STR up so the people that are likely to buy martial weapons often also have the skills to make their own, at least at T2. Reducing durability will not help Bowyers or Weaponsmiths get work. No-one uses potions much either (wrong place to discuss why) so being an Alchemist sort of sucks but again durability nerfing is not a solution here either.
  5. Overall I believe there is a viable economy - it is just not based around the auction house as people direct trade

I will throw this out as an idea to mull over …. Whilst personally I do NOT think the durability versus queue time ratio is a problem at all and believe it is perfectly fine just the way it is, should you ever for some random reason want to fiddle about with it, surely the thing to do is double the queue time across the server for all crafters and refiners NOT mess about with halving durability.

Doubling queue time rather than cutting durability would have the same effect on the ratio of craft time to gear loss that you are wanting BUT without the added massive disadvantage of doubling the the demand for raw gathered mats, something that is a huge problem with the present low population and minimal dedicated gatherers in game already and does not need to be made worse.
Flari-Merchant
And again… what is there to lose by trying to stimulate the Demand side of the equation?

Edam
I simply cannot see dropping durability doing anything other than lowering demand.
If you really think that needing gear more often because it breaks sooner will lessen demand for gear, I really can't help you. You are basing your arguments on how you personally think you would react to gear with less than 20 durability, how you assume others would react, and how often your own group goes through gear.

A set of T2 +3 gear takes what? about 3 days to craft? Your tailors are fulltime crafting and can't keep up with the demand? I doubt that. I'll bet that your crafters are tied up crafting T3 gear. Considering that takes almost 10 times the craft time, I don't think it applies to the debate. Certainly not if your crafters are busy making T3 while your group mostly uses T2.

Your assumptions are also wrong about who asks for messing with the economy. We are pretty busy escalation killers. Even so, for most of us(myself not included) it is very rare for anyone to die an average of one time per escalation. If you are burning through T2 gear tso fast that your crafters can't keep up, as I wrote above, be honest. It is because they are queued up crafting T3.

With the craft materials involved and the time involved, I do not think it would be so awful to lay durability out something like T1=5 T2=10 and T3=20. That helps account for the extra time and materials cost. New players can only die 5 times and they need new gear? Oh no! T1+ crafters now have some reason to craft T1 gear! Please do not say that it is too hard for new players to get coin to buy new gear. That is rubbish.

A SERVER viable economy is not a CLOSED economy. One group that stays busy and supplies itself really isn't a great measure of a successful game wide economy. It isn't all about crafting only. No one likes to gather raw materials and sell them because A. It is too time consuming for the pay off and B. They do not need coin for anything anyway.

@ Duffy
You really believe that reducing coin drop overall will put players in danger of not being able to afford training costs? Ahh, c'mon! LOL Seriously? Maybe if you have 10 accounts with active alts and only one character brings home coin. Is that a realistic way to look at how much coin should be dropping? Maybe if your alt characters could craft and sell things, they could pay for their own training?

Of all my points, the need to nerf the amount of coin dropping is the weakest. I will give you that. It's value will always economically adjust itself, given time. Except when there is no reason to spend it.

Do you argumentative types really think that this(what we have now) is how the economic flow was supposed to be? Even though we have a small population, should we not see an intended economic system at work but just on a smaller scale? Is there some better way that you can think of to get things moving than characters needing things more often than they do now?
Tyncale
You guys keep talking as if this game has people in it. There will be no defending, no PvP with these dormant account holders and no "last resort Diplomacy" where these people will pick up their bags and join one of the groups that are left "playing".

If this move is meant as a reset, then that's a pretty shitty move. Stopping development more then a year ago, then dangling potential funding for our noses for so long telling us to "hang on for better times"(so people do this) and then they suddenly decide to unleash such an unhinging feature upon an empty game in limbo, waiting for development money. Still lacking so many features.

I am fine with some sort of reset, but I would have expected this from a new development team(with money) that would lay out their new development plan to us. The latter is what most of us were ready for. At least the game would have a future again then.

But this is just emptying out the game even further without any new hope for the future.
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)
Flari-Merchant
Tyncale
You guys keep talking as if this game has people in it. There will be no defending, no PvP with these dormant account holders and no "last resort Diplomacy" where these people will pick up their bags and join one of the groups that are left "playing".

If this move is meant as a reset, then that's a pretty shitty move. Stopping development more then a year ago, then dangling potential funding for our noses for so long telling us to "hang on for better times"(so people do this) and then they suddenly decide to unleash such an unhinging feature upon an empty game in limbo, waiting for development money. Still lacking so many features.

I am fine with some sort of reset, but I would have expected this from a new development team(with money) that would lay out their new development plan to us. The latter is what most of us were ready for. At least the game would have a future again then.

But this is just emptying out the game even further without any new hope for the future.

Not that I am much in favor of time being put into this feature right now but we should keep in mind that we have not seen a revised edition since we have given these few days of feedback. We have no idea what exactly we will see come of it.
You are probably right that there are very few players that would come back with nothing much having been changed except their settlement under threat of being taken. It would probably be a last straw thing. That is an interesting question though isn't it? On one hand you have people that are still subbed but will not play much until there is positive news of change along with those that are not subbed but would again if things take off. On the other hand you have people that pay and play and are relatively active. Should the "properties" of the dormant or non playing players be protected or invulnerable from the active live account players? Why? How is that in any way reasonable?
Tyncale
I think they should withold from sweeping changes untill they secure funding again. You can not call this a working game at the moment, in my opinion. In the meantime they could throw the few active players a bone now and then like they did with the Legends escalations. I think they should maximize the chance of this game getting an investor and I do not see how running off even more paying accounts and letting the game look as if the entire world is divided between 3 or 4 tiny groups of players will help this.

It's probably all too little too late anyway, and some sort of reset is likely anyway, but I just do not see the benefits for Paizo and GW, other then humoring 60 active players by giving them the world. I mean, I sure think you guys deserve some credit and stuff to do but not this.
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)
Flari-Merchant
Tyncale
I think they should withold from sweeping changes untill they secure funding again. You can not call this a working game at the moment, in my opinion. In the meantime they could throw the few active players a bone now and then like they did with the Legends escalations. I think they should maximize the chance of this game getting an investor and I do not see how running off even more paying accounts and letting the game look as if the entire world is divided between 3 or 4 tiny groups of players will help this.

It's probably all too little too late anyway, and some sort of reset is likely anyway, but I just do not see the benefits for Paizo and GW, other then humoring 60 active players by giving them the world. I mean, I sure think you guys deserve some credit and stuff to do but not this.
Decent answer. Thank you, Sir.
Drizzle
I agree that we have a surplus of crafters versus combat characters and hence too much gear availability but the obvious solution is double or triple all crafting times.
Mistwalker
Let's not forget that most of us in the game right now have Twinned accounts, so can have a fighting character (with maybe one crafting skill) and a pure crafter. New players will not, so let's not put in place things will hurt new players more than older players.
You are a Troll
Duffy Swiftshadow
2. we need more incidental reasons to risk unpredictable PvP encounters.

Then light up the T3 escalations on the map, or just the Gathering of Legends escalation. It will draw toons like moths to a flame and you will see A LOT more PvP. smile
Zax
But is the remaining population willing to PVP? There were already rumblings when the Gathering of Legends was going on. Every time there is conflict in the online world of Golarion, people react poorly. EVERY time. And though I agree that siege warfare does not seem to be optimal given the population, it does allow the resolution of conflicts rather than "bleeding out a group" or "running off players". So, does the remaining player base understand what a territorial sandbox is?

*Edit - And more importantly, is the remaining player base willing to participate?
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post