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.

Fun With Content

Bob
Flari-Merchant
Wouldn't it be simple(even if tedious) to remove all but the regular weight grade and maybe the 2x weight grade of resources?
It's actually the code itself that assigns a grade to each item that gets pulled. The big spreadsheet that sets the specific amounts of each gatherable raw material is in each hex just says "X amount of Wool." If the item that gets pulled is from the top 25% of X, the code assigns the top grade to the item. If it's from the second 25%, it assigns the second grade, and so on.

Probably would be a fairly simple change to have the code assign the second grade to the bottom 75%. I'm not a huge fan of code work that we intend to switch back eventually, but sometimes that's okay. It would, as you say, speed the vaults up as the bottom grades get used up. That said, I'm not sure how common it is for folks to pull the lowest grades anyway. If it's mostly the top 2 grades, then we'll only really get results by consolidating down to 1 grade, something I'm more comfortable doing after the mats have been at least hauled to a building.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Flari-Merchant
Wouldn't it be simple(even if tedious) to remove all but the regular weight grade and maybe the 2x weight grade of resources?
It's actually the code itself that assigns a grade to each item that gets pulled. The big spreadsheet that sets the specific amounts of each gatherable raw material is in each hex just says "X amount of Wool." If the item that gets pulled is from the top 25% of X, the code assigns the top grade to the item. If it's from the second 25%, it assigns the second grade, and so on.

Probably would be a fairly simple change to have the code assign the second grade to the bottom 75%. I'm not a huge fan of code work that we intend to switch back eventually, but sometimes that's okay. It would, as you say, speed the vaults up as the bottom grades get used up. That said, I'm not sure how common it is for folks to pull the lowest grades anyway. If it's mostly the top 2 grades, then we'll only really get results by consolidating down to 1 grade, something I'm more comfortable doing after the mats have been at least hauled to a building.
That makes sense. Thank you for addressing the question.
Edam
Bob
That said, I'm not sure how common it is for folks to pull the lowest grades anyway. If it's mostly the top 2 grades, then we'll only really get results by consolidating down to 1 grade, something I'm more comfortable doing after the mats have been at least hauled to a building.

It is generally pretty hard to degrade stuff unless are deliberately trashing the hex or you run multiple gushers. Some of the more common mats seem to be present in numbers up in the thousands per level per hex.

Plus generally speaking a gatherer capable of regularly depleting a hex solo generally has the freehold feats and encumbrance to carry what they get. As a case in point,my level 20 miner mentioned in another thread regularly gets 500+ gushers AND is more than capable of moving that 500 iron or coal, in inventory, without getting into the top bar at all and without strength tokens or mighty.

I suspect people who are regularly getting lower quality stuff and cannot carry it are simply not putting enough XP into boosting CON freehold feats and encumbrance bonus.

NOW … salvage on a combat character is another matter altogether. Broken peasant furniture sux big time to bring home smile You generally have to mule it and most people do not bother. If the bandits ever get their wish to raid peoples private vaults in holdings they are going to get themselves an awful lot of torn peasant clothes and broken furniture and not much else smile
Edam
Here is a thought:

Expand the map by about 3 hexes all around.

make it an area blocked to holdings and outposts with no settlements.

Make it low security for open PvP.

Make the random mobs harder (ninjas etc) .

Make the gathered hexes much better than the existing map (perhaps even dropping the amount of stuff in existing hexes to compensate) .

Azure_Zero
Edam
Here is a thought:

Expand the map by about 3 hexes all around.

make it an area blocked to holdings and outposts with no settlements.

Make it low security for open PvP.

Make the random mobs harder (ninjas etc) .

Make the gathered hexes much better than the existing map (perhaps even dropping the amount of stuff in existing hexes to compensate) .

I don't think making the map bigger will help with the game any. If anything the map needs to shrink, a lot.
So how about instead you pop all settlements and Holdings within say 6 hexes of the border and then block all holdings and outposts within that 6 hexes to the border, that 6 hex border is Low sec only, only T3 mobs and they get stronger and more powerful you are to the map border, with all monster hexes in that area only giving T2 and T3 stuff, and the regular hexes only have T2 mats and a lot of it.
And everyone who lost something gets compensated for it.
Flari-Merchant
I think we all keep suggesting things that would require more actual coding time than Paizo can invest right now. smile
Azure_Zero
Something that doesn't require coding would be getting these forums some actual avatars.
Bob
Azure_Zero
Something that doesn't require coding would be getting these forums some actual avatars.
Well, not game code, and clearly the back-end forum code we're using has some basic avatar support, but at the very least there'd be some technical website work needed to provide an interface for selecting your avatar. Cole handles that side of things as well, so it takes the same place in our schedule as code work. Does have the advantage of being easier to build, test and deploy, so it might be easier to fit into the schedule than some other options.
Bob
Edam
Expand the map by about 3 hexes all around.

make it an area blocked to holdings and outposts with no settlements.

Make it low security for open PvP.

Make the random mobs harder (ninjas etc) .

Make the gathered hexes much better than the existing map (perhaps even dropping the amount of stuff in existing hexes to compensate) .
We've always planned on increasing the map area as population rises, but doing so is one of our most expensive undertakings. Beyond the artist work involved, which is daunting and definitely requires an actual artist, additional hexes also require additional physical servers, or in the future at least increase our cloud footprint/cost.

The other things you listed are relatively simple spreadsheet work. Our longer-term plan was for much of that to happen dynamically. For example, gathering would be better in the outskirts because hexes wouldn't be drained by gatherers working near their settlements/holdings. Likewise, the mobs would be harder, because escalations would be spreading and sticking around, unchallenged by nearby settlements. It would certainly be possible to simulate that temporarily by just setting such hexes to temporarily be more challenging.
Bob
Azure_Zero
So how about instead you pop all settlements and Holdings within say 6 hexes of the border and then block all holdings and outposts within that 6 hexes to the border, that 6 hex border is Low sec only, only T3 mobs and they get stronger and more powerful you are to the map border, with all monster hexes in that area only giving T2 and T3 stuff, and the regular hexes only have T2 mats and a lot of it.
And everyone who lost something gets compensated for it.
Something like this would certainly be more feasible than adding to the map, but it would be difficult to come up with a compensation scheme that was both fair to those pushed out of their current territory and at the same time fair to those who didn't get compensated for territory further in. Sometimes I've wondered about coming up with more of a voluntary scheme, with compensation anyone can choose but which only results in closing things off from being retaken for territory along the edges. Not sure there'd be enough takers to get the results we'd be looking for, but it could be worth exploring.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post