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.

Fun With Content

Flari-Merchant
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.

Yikes! Is this forum structure completely built from scratch? What about re-integrating it back into the Paizo forums? Or are we the annoying unwanted step cousin of the RPG Paizo family? smile
Tuoweit
Flari-Merchant
Or are we the annoying unwanted step cousin of the RPG Paizo family? smile

I suspect that's exactly it. There were some pretty heated discussions in that section of the Paizo forums back in the day smile
Drizzle
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.

Shrinking the map so that basically only Thornkeep, Carpe Deim and Aragorn are left would certainly reduce travel time for the bored and lazy casual weekend players and make PvP between those two groups a bit more common. However the voluntary option for edge settlements like PFU, Ozems, Fort Ouroboros, Keepers Pass to hand in their settlement and become vassels of the two settlements that survived may not get a lot of takers smile

As far as the attitude of the general Piazo forums goes I suspect unless it is a direct port of the table top game with identical classes, rules and so forth and no PvP, it will always be controversial over there.
Azure_Zero
Drizzle
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.

Shrinking the map so that basically only Thornkeep, Carpe Deim and Aragorn are left would certainly reduce travel time for the bored and lazy casual weekend players and make PvP between those two groups a bit more common. However the voluntary option for edge settlements like PFU, Ozems, Fort Ouroboros, Keepers Pass to hand in their settlement and become vassels of the two settlements that survived may not get a lot of takers smile

As far as the attitude of the general Piazo forums goes I suspect unless it is a direct port of the table top game with identical classes, rules and so forth and no PvP, it will always be controversial over there.

If we did 6 hexes in you can count on even Carpe being nuked.
But ALL groups have a number of other settlements that they could relocated to.
The Commonwealth do have some settlements closer to the center of the map, as does Keeper's Pass.
I did a PFOGIS check and we could safely do 2 hexes in without any issues on any side except the northern side, which would nuke 3 settlements, the other two just make it and would need to be allowed to keep their core 6.
Bob
Flari-Merchant
Is this forum structure completely built from scratch? What about re-integrating it back into the Paizo forums? Or are we the annoying unwanted step cousin of the RPG Paizo family? smile
We're using a third-party forum system, and that system does support avatars, but it's all hooked into our larger website/account system. We're not just sending you to the forum system and letting it take care of you. Instead, we're providing hooks so you can interact with and view the forums from our website. We just haven't done the hooks yet to interact with the avatar part, and we also haven't provided a library of avatars to choose from. Those are all feasible, but the hooks are definitely in Cole's domain.

We've sometimes discussed going back to the Paizo forums, but we'd lose the connection between the forum posts and the Pathfinder Online accounts. We don't make too much use of that right now, though it does help guarantee that everyone posting here has at least at some point had a playable account. That also helps us keep spam down without requiring much moderation.

In the long-term, we had bigger plans for integrating things more tightly, and that might be harder to do there. We'd also need to decide which parts of our forum structure to replicate there, and then work with their team to get that done. And we'd need to figure out what to do about archiving these forums, perhaps just leaving them viewable, and then make those changes.

TL/DR: There are some costs and benefits, both long- and short-term, but switching to the Paizo forums could be done and we do discuss it occasionally.
Edam
Azure_Zero
The Commonwealth do have some settlements closer to the center of the map, as does Keeper's Pass.
I did a PFOGIS check and we could safely do 2 hexes in without any issues on any side except the northern side, which would nuke 3 settlements, the other two just make it and would need to be allowed to keep their core 6.

Keepers Pass is basically affiliated with Fort Ouroboros and nothing else. Neither of those are anywhere near the centre of the map.
Edam
Azure_Zero
I did a PFOGIS check and we could safely do 2 hexes in without any issues on any side except the northern side, which would nuke 3 settlements, the other two just make it and would need to be allowed to keep their core 6.
Two hexes in would pretty much kill most of our Fort Ouroboros holdings. We have already put off placing our +5 buildings due to a lack of bulk even though we have the DI and the +5 buildings are already made. In fact we are sitting on a batch of +4s waiting for some holding upgrades to get more bulk wood happening, we basically mainly placed +4s that need no wood. Whilst affiliated with KP, Nadya has always made it clear Fort is still a separate settlement and needs to be totally independent for bulk purposes.

The main question though is why shrink the map ? It takes maybe 15 minutes to run a character north south and maybe 25 minutes to do a run from Fort in the SW up to PFU or Thornkeep in the NE. What possible advantage is there to it other than laziness ? It is not like the settlements will suddenly get busy on a small map as when people log in they immediately get out of town to gather or kill things not wander about town and wave at passersby.

I am very much in favour of a BIGGER map, though Bob has indicated that is a too much work at present.
Bob
Azure_Zero
If we did 6 hexes in you can count on even Carpe being nuked.
But ALL groups have a number of other settlements that they could relocated to.
The Commonwealth do have some settlements closer to the center of the map, as does Keeper's Pass.
I did a PFOGIS check and we could safely do 2 hexes in without any issues on any side except the northern side, which would nuke 3 settlements, the other two just make it and would need to be allowed to keep their core 6.
Though it would certainly be easier to picture the world with an even border around it, there's no requirement that any reduction be made perfectly evenly in every direction, or even that it be perfectly straight across each edge.
Edam
Bob
Though it would certainly be easier to picture the world with an even border around it, there's no requirement that any reduction be made perfectly evenly in every direction, or even that it be perfectly straight across each edge.

That might help a little but its hard to get past the point that these suggested changes will be a boon to central settlements like Carpe and Aragorn and totally kill the holdings of corner settlements like Fort and Keepers.

On the subject of holdings … what is the reason for the US centric mechanism that requires people from elsewhere to get up at 3.00 am for server up to replace a holding when changing the holding type - you need to set an alarm at an ungodly hour to avoid the possibility that someone else might log in before you and steal the hex.
Kitorian
As the settlement leader of Keeper's Pass, I am NOT in favor in any way with shrinking the map and cutting out Keeper's Pass from the map. And 90% of our holdings are south of Keeper's Pass.

Keeper's Pass players have played each day since launch. We played the game that was and did not wait for the game that was promised or for the game to get better like a fair number of the player base who simply logged out and checked every few weeks or every few months to see if the game got better or offered some incentive to resume playing. And Keeper's worked themselves to have one the few +5 settlements in the game in which All settlement buildings locations have a +5 building in it.

So it it simply not just a "No" to the suggestion - it is a empathic "Hell NO".

And floating the idea of some sort of "compensation" doesn't pass muster unless we lose NOTHING as part of this. Our players have been ever present in the game and have worked damn hard to get KP to where it is. I am against any suggestion that all their years of logging in and doing the hard work will be for naught because some players think shrinking the map and dumping all the displaced players to duke it for some place in the new map.

This game is Pathfinder Online. It is not some game with a Battle Royale mode to determine who gets a settlement.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post