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.

Thank You Lisa, for Hope and the Road Map.

@Tyncale … T3+3 or higher Spellbooks are worth somewhere between 30 gold and half a Platinum, it is not just weapons and armor that get expensive. In fact a wizard is more likely to thread the spellbook first.
Edam, that is just because black is unavailable or if it is, it is at such a high price that it doesn't warrant the effort to get the mats to trade for it. While I do have a couple T3 spellbooks, I don't use them, I save them for PVP. I use T2+3 spellbooks most of the time.

True, though it is more a combination of black being in limited supply AND the fact you only get two ink per batch instead of the five/six ink per batch you would normally expect based on other apothecary recipes.
Thank you very much for the update and especially the roadmap. And as always, I appreciate the hard work by all. Long Live Golarion! Long Live The River Kingdoms!
I've kind of given up on this game as a great PvP game, at least as far as holding warfare.

The latest philosophy that

it takes a long time to build, thus it should take a long time to destroy

sort of ignores the situation where the builder-centric players not only have always vastly outnumbered the PvP-centric players, but the vast majority of builders have had 27 months of uninterrupted building (or at least the gathering to be able to build).

Even if Red and Blue came back in force (they won't) Blue will still prefer building (and they are bigger). With 48 hour delays on feuds, and only 3 days of PvP windows each week, it sounds like everyone will still have more days to gather and build than to destroy. I don't see how the PvPers can possibly make headway against any but the smallest, sloppiest, and absent builders.

Feel free to correct me on how you think PvPers can make some headway against all I pointed out.

However, I don't need this to be a great PvP game (but it certainly looked promising way back when). I play a lot of games where I don't PvP. What I did need is some sort of certainty about the game continuing, before putting more time and money into it, and I accept the roadmap and that it will be a niche game.

I'm still willing to PvP but I can't see (yet) how anything but defense is going to make sense in holding warfare.

The best fights have actually always been over escalation boss drops, so I imagine those fights still happen or will happen when there are enough players.

Maybe gushers might spice PvP up, too, if the rules for hex control don't get in the way.

Maybe factions will make a different kind of PvP fun, but I didn't even see that on the first year of the roadmap.

Poaching and preventing poaching could lead to interesting PvP but that, also, depends on how hex control will work.

Midnight is a quad-gatherer (T3/T3/T2/T2 if I remember correctly), so she's still a perfect fit for a building game.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
If you read the early blogs before the crowdfunding it was always the case that Settlement PvP was always meant to be between very large very organised groups with large resources.

Not necessarily established groups mind you, any group with numbers, resources, diplomatic skills enough to avoid upsetting the whole map and a lot of organisation and discipline. Whether new or established is beside the point.

Now ever since that time there has been a small but determined push from a subset of players to make scrappy small gang casual weekend PvP a thing and too some extent over the years the game has changed to cater more for that sort of play.

However it is highly unlikely things will change to the point that a small disorganised group of friends with no resources will be able to casually pop in over the school holidays and take down an alliance with ten times the players just because they feel like it and have nothing better to do. smile

Such a situation is also not good for the game long term. Even if a new group of keen non-builder PvP fanatics can get organised with enough numbers willing to work together for long enough to take out an older established but possibly disenchanted larger group they are pretty likely to just quit themselves once they "win" as their will be no one left to fight.
But will endless uncontested building be a sustainable game, or just entertain the same (15?) players?

Why even have holding warfare if builder-centric players are always going to outnumber PvP-centric players and will always have a 27 month lead, and will always have (at least) 4 days a week to gather/build?

I think that if you forked the game into 2 alternate universes (one where the planned changes occur, and another where holding warfare is simply turned off) that the maps would be very close to identical 10 months later.

The planned changes seem as if they want to market PFO as having territorial warfare without actually seeing territory change hands.

I don't really care, it will probably be simpler to gather in a static world than in one with dynamic territory changes.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
We definitely intend for it to be possible to take down even the most established settlement, and it shouldn't generally require anything on the order of 27 weeks to do so. It might take that long to do so very methodically, or if there's a lot of back-and-forth taking of territory along the way, or if the settlement is buried deep inside an established alliance, but it should be possible to do so more quickly with a powerful enough force of attackers. We don't expect it to happen often, but we expect it to be possible, and we do expect lone settlements and settlements on the outer borders of alliances to change hands more often.

In terms of being able to build for 4 days and be attacked for 3, that does give the defenders some opportunity to rebuild, but inside of smaller territory. If they lose territory each week, they'll still eventually fall, though they may eventually be able to concentrate their forces enough to prevent further losses, while the attackers are now more spread out and vulnerable during their own PvP windows. If the attackers do get to the point of actually surrounding the settlement with siege equipment, we'll also restrict the settlement's ability to repair damage during their 4 non-PvP days. With the rules I'm currently writing up, I simply won't count any new structures or bulk resources as part of the defenses if they're added after the siege begins. When we eventually automate the sieges, we'll have mechanics that restrict new buildings, or upkeep deposits, or whatever is appropriate to restrict during that time.

All that said, I'll agree that we do want a certain amount of stability, particularly deep within established alliances. We expect more PvP-averse players to feel relatively safe in those areas. We want the borders and less populated areas to be more dynamic, with holdings changing hands reasonably often, and settlements changing hands occasionally. More PvP-interested players would spend their time in those areas. Pushing back the borders of a successful, established alliance and taking it completely down will be a big deal, and very difficult to pull off, but at the very least technically possible.
@Tyncale … T3+3 or higher Spellbooks are worth somewhere between 30 gold and half a Platinum, it is not just weapons and armor that get expensive. In fact a wizard is more likely to thread the spellbook first.
That is true, if threading would be implemented now there would at least be a few choices to be made. But it always bothered me that such a large percentage of our Equipment slots are still completely useless because of no Enchanting and the fact that there are only a few Utilities, most of them severely role-locked, and pretty useless to boot.

I think this will continue to stand out to newcomers as a painful example of how unifinished this game still really is.

To talk a bit more about Utilities: utilities govern no less then 8! of the equipment slots on our Paper Doll. That is half. Since this Game is heavily centered around a Player-economy, where each item is being created *by* players, *for* players, feeding Harvesting, Transport, Crafting, Trade and in the end, PVP, this should mean that Utilities must be the cats miauw in order to have players actually *bother* about these 8 equipmentslots. Bother as in: "do I want to Thread my gloves? Do I want to Equip my Gloves? Do I even ever want to *buy* Gloves?"

Yet the current state of Utilities is:
Only 16 utilities to choose from.
Severely Ability locked, meaning you can not get past level 2 or 3 if you do not invest heavily (as in many months of XP)in the right Role/Ability;
Effects and durations are so weak and short that they are useless exept Evasion which is useful at level 1.
Can only slot 2 utilities.

Before Enchanting can even be a factor, Utilities need a serious boost and possibly should be unlocked by any Ability that is high enough.
Let us face it, who would bother to invest in gear that lets you get 3 rounds of Physical Resistant as a Cleric? Exept that it's never even 3 full rounds(a whopping 12 seconds) but always less then that due to the whole infathomable keyword/EPow/Edef thing.

I always found Utilities and the fact that it governs half of the Paper Doll (half of the Economy?) to be one of the things that needed serious work. Or rather a total rework. Just slapping on some stats through Enchantment is not going to cut it I think.

And I am afraid this will be one the things that will stick out like a sore thumb when those tens of thousands of people get to try the game.
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)
You are a Troll
I use my utility feats quite often - as in every single combat - and need to slot four different *wearables* to get the max duration from one of them (I will give you evasion needs only level 1) because of the completely (if you bother to make a study of it) fathomable epow/epro mechanic, which I happen to like quite a bit.

Being able to qualify for them with any ability high enough, or even a secondary on each high enough, is a good idea and could really open things up a bit in terms of choices. As well, reducing durability on *wearables* down to 10 or even 5 would help boost crafting and sales of such things too.
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post