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.

Start Over

Bob
BlackMoria
All hail Emperor Bob?
I do like the sound of that smile
harneloot
Well, I think you are all being delusional. The game is dead, or nearly so. It certainly isn't operating at anywhere near the population intended. As I said before, several times, go ahead and wipe out half, 75, 90% of the holdings, go ahead and expand the map and make more hexes for people to put holdings on, let people settle the currently *turned off* settlement hexes…..and you know what?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

The game will be EXACTLY like it is now! Aint nobody goona come play this game as it is in the numbers necessary to make the River Kingdoms the LIVING place it could be (and NEEDS to be). You really think HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of people are going to want to play PFO when there is an entrenched upper class? Its simply not going to happen.

Finish the Unity Upgrade, get some new art assets in here and whatever other cool tweaks can come with the upgrade and then WIPE the game and reboot it, offering a chance for everyone to claim their piece of the River Kingdoms.

Do people *seriously* think PFO is ever going to thrive any other way?

(I hear you Nightmare - I know you have worked hard and stuck it out and grinded your ass off to make your settlement work, and I salute you for it! You could still play around at T3 for another 8 months until the Unity upgrade is done, then, after the Wipe we'd all be Newbies again in Thornkeep eager to tame and claim the River Kingdoms!)

Obviously, my opinion is in the minority, so this is the last post I'll make about it. I'm still here - even if I don't play much any more, and I will support whatever the community thinks is the best path forward.

Cheers all!
smile
Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
Azure_Zero
BlackMoria
Wow. Nice idea, but who get to be settlement leaders of the 2 or 3 settlements? Because you risk turning this into a Game of Thrones without the White Walkers or Dragons.

Which of all the settlement leaders get to be King for the two or three settlements and the rest of the settlement leaders get told to sod off - thanks for jumping through all the hoops and stuff to become settlement leaders but go to the back of the bus now because of now you are under new management. Who decides this and how? Elections? The top two or three leaders of the most developed settlements are the leaders? Game of Thrones style? All hail Emperor Bob?

That is going to be a stumbling block. Only several settlement leaders remain, the rest get told 'thanks for playing but give up your driver seat and get to the back of the bus'.

And what if players don't like any of the royal rumps installed in the select few seats of power. What is their recourse? The current rules make the settlement leader near invincible. They can't be deposed - either Bob must remove them or they must step down. So, settlement leadership rules would have to be reworked perhaps. Because I don't see reducing all the settlement leaders down to two or three being without a whole lot of angst.

Well depending on how each alliance operates and thinks it could be done a number of ways, leaders could be selected diplomatically, or the head of the alliance takes all power and there could be other variants of this.
BlackMoria
And the independent settlements? We still have those. They don't get a say or a chance at this because the criteria for running for a settlement leader slot is alliances?
Bob
BlackMoria
The current rules make the settlement leader near invincible. They can't be deposed - either Bob must remove them or they must step down.
Very true, though to be clear, I will remove settlement owners if they don't meet the requirements. Those requirements are pretty minimal, for now, but we have been steadily adding to them. It would be possible to institute some rules that allow for coups, or impeachments, or other appropriate options, but in general I'd have to start from the assumption that existing settlements had chosen Tyranny as their choice of government, but let the current owners switch to another form by unanimous consent. I'd also have to provide a lot of warning before instituting any such rule changes, so the current owners would have some time to prepare, particularly if Tyranny included a coup option.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Flari-Merchant
That depends on your point of view. Remember that just about all of the Settlements in the game now(maybe all?) were pre awarded. That set a stage for the "haves" and the "have no chancers". Or maybe it is inaccurate to state that as there has never been a sufficient incoming group sticking around long enough to try and build a settlement from nothing.

A year in to a reset might look different if everyone had to earn(through some type of gameplay) a spot to put their Settlement.

There's actually been a fair amount of settlement turnover since launch. Many are indeed still from the Land Rush, and some may just still carry the original name. There are even two claimable settlements right now, though it probably wouldn't be easy to claim the hexes around them.

If we start to feel the population is ready for it, we can also start opening up some of the placeholder settlements. However, if we don't put some kind of tendency in for territory to be lost through game mechanics, as opposed to just through PvP, the tendency will always be for the world to fill up as quickly as it can, and then stay full.
Bob, This game is Based on Territorial PVP, PVP should be the biggest control of holdings, but the game's current population is way TOO small for that element to work right.
I know every hex is taken, so what do I do, I target a known dead company and take their hexes and they are easy to find if one thinks and scouts for information and tracks their targets before going at the dead company.

If this game gets restarted on a MUCH smaller map a with the notes I posted it may work.
Azure_Zero
BlackMoria
And the independent settlements? We still have those. They don't get a say or a chance at this because the criteria for running for a settlement leader slot is alliances?

Truly independent settlements don't really exist anymore, all of them have a connection with a alliance in one way or another.
But we could also group all the independent settlements into one new settlement and they setup a democracy.
Bob
harneloot
You really think HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of people are going to want to play PFO when there is an entrenched upper class? Its simply not going to happen.
This, or at least the perception of it, is clearly a huge issue for incoming players. However, it's only temporarily solved by a wipe. Without rule changes, two years later things will look roughly the same, and incoming players at that time will have the same worries. Our goal is to keep adjusting the mechanics until things are properly balanced, focusing on the adjustments that feel most important for our population at the time.
Flari-Merchant
harneloot
Well, I think you are all being delusional. The game is dead, or nearly so. It certainly isn't operating at anywhere near the population intended. As I said before, several times, go ahead and wipe out half, 75, 90% of the holdings, go ahead and expand the map and make more hexes for people to put holdings on, let people settle the currently *turned off* settlement hexes…..and you know what?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

The game will be EXACTLY like it is now! Aint nobody goona come play this game as it is in the numbers necessary to make the River Kingdoms the LIVING place it could be (and NEEDS to be). You really think HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of people are going to want to play PFO when there is an entrenched upper class? Its simply not going to happen.

Finish the Unity Upgrade, get some new art assets in here and whatever other cool tweaks can come with the upgrade and then WIPE the game and reboot it, offering a chance for everyone to claim their piece of the River Kingdoms.

Do people *seriously* think PFO is ever going to thrive any other way?

(I hear you Nightmare - I know you have worked hard and stuck it out and grinded your ass off to make your settlement work, and I salute you for it! You could still play around at T3 for another 8 months until the Unity upgrade is done, then, after the Wipe we'd all be Newbies again in Thornkeep eager to tame and claim the River Kingdoms!)

Obviously, my opinion is in the minority, so this is the last post I'll make about it. I'm still here - even if I don't play much any more, and I will support whatever the community thinks is the best path forward.

Cheers all!
smile
Sigh. It must be really hard to imagine all the accumulated power, recipes, skills, resources, etc… going POOF!

So hard to imagine that people forget how much fun it was trying to find and acquire all that stuff along the way. That was where the real fun was. You found the right recipe you were The Star for a few days or weeks. Sigh. It is the journey and not the destination that holds the most wonder. smile
Bob
Azure_Zero
Bob, This game is Based on Territorial PVP, PVP should be the biggest control of holdings, but the game's current population is way TOO small for that element to work right.
I know every hex is taken, so what do I do, I target a known dead company and take their hexes and they are easy to find if one thinks and scouts for information and tracks their targets before going at the dead company.
PvP is indeed intended to be the ultimate arbiter for territorial control, but it was always meant to be tempered in various ways. The influence system helps ensure that you can't PvP for territory without at least some members participating in non-PvP. The DI system helps ensure that you can't claim or hold settlements without managing at least some other territory. The original Max Influence system (as intended, with only Active characters counting) ensured that you couldn't participate in territorial PvP without a certain number of members. It's a lot of different systems interacting to limit each other, with PvP the deciding factor in individual battles, but with groups unable to expand indefinitely purely through PvP.

Ultimately, our goal was to always have some areas of the map that were uninhabited, though not necessarily a high percentage at any given time. If the population grew too large and things got crowded, we were going to expand the map, with a reasonably high bar for claiming new territory and settlements. If individual settlements or companies could no longer support themselves due to lack of members/activity, their territory would be taken away for others to claim. Groups looking to expand would have a choice of attacking some existing territory if PvP was their strength, or clearing territory if PvE was their strength, but wouldn't be able to do either until they had reached a certain size and strength.

All of this is to say that your tactic of seeking out the most promising territory to attack is exactly right given the current circumstances, and even right if it's your preferred tactic, it just wasn't meant to be the only tactic available for expansion.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post