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

Flari-Merchant
Are you referring to the attempted "group setup" that is now at the Settlement known as Middenheim?

I didn't have any deep discussions involving that try. That was another player from my group, so I would have to defer to them about many of the details. I can say that I got an impression from brief talks back and forth with my Alliance Brother about it. I can say that my Brother came to me as I had that extra settlement on my plate and was looking for a way to get it out of my hair.

*He found a guy(part of a gaming group, I think some group of buddies) that wanted to try it out
*They were turned over the settlement and enough bulk for at least 6 months
*The vaults were stocked also with kits for new holdings and outposts to swap the hexes around the thing
*Seems, to me, like the problem was that the original guy that wanted to try could not get his friends to try or at least could not get them interested to stay in the game to give it a real go.
*One thing that may have felt daunting is that there were almost no free ready built structures in the settlement itself, but that is just a guess at any kind of negative to "The Easy Free Gift" that was offered.

So was that an example of "The Chores" being too onerous for many to not want to run a settlement? Or was it, back to basics, an example of the game(as it is) simply not being compelling enough to attract your average player into playing for a while? I think the latter is the truth from scanty evidence.

I DO FEEL that running a settlement is a real set of chores that should not be doable by one player, let alone actually HAVING TO BE DONE as it is through obvious numerous examples. As in "has to be done" to maintain a great deal of effort by many players previously and to maintain top power lvls for those sticking the game out.

Really. Turn The Chores Off for now, please…. smile
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Azure_Zero
In fact I think Gloria Victis has better player retention because it is simpler and less of a chore to run a settlement.

As someone who played Gloria Victis for many more years than he should have I can tell you this is definitely false. First off it is an apples and oranges comparison since GV is a faction based (sort of) game in the first place. Many of the castles are not customizable and have a static layout and can be burned to the ground at any time by an enemy forcing you to rebuild everything. There are castles the devs place across the map that can be taken by individual guilds but even then it is a pain in the ass to make any changes, much less make them idiot and glitch proof. Plus most castle combat last I played was basically either the enemy factioms turtle up till your guys get bored or wait till everyone logs out and take empty castles. There is no other land to take as it is already predefined for you as well.

Believe it or not the combat is far more glitchy, more easily exploited and unlike PFO their devs do not care at all. The community is also extremely toxic unless you have no problem getting your account hacked or getting doxxed.

In short, GV is not a good model for how to fix PFO. I'll never consider returning to PFO if it becomes that mess. Many people don't stay due to the above factors and those who do are the same people who always played. They also made it even more difficult to craft things than PFO and that has driven away players (along with duping issues the GV devs never fixed).
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Azure_Zero
@ Paddy
That does sound, bad, but the question more asked was "how easy is it to run a settlement in GV?"
if the only chore is to defend your settlement that in some ways an easier chore then what is in PFO at the moment.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
@azure

That is just it though, they aren't settlements in the PFO sense at all. As I said before it is an apples and organes question.

If you enjoy constantly defending a castle from opponents who glitch and use exploits all the time instead of by a fair fight from 3 in the afternoon till at least 2 in the morning every night then I guess it is…easier?

Now to level up a castle to where you get the best guards and crafting facilities (which also downgrade significantly when you lose it)? Well for each level of building you first need to upgrade the keep to the appropriate level with an increasing amount of resources and increasing tier of various types as well. Then you have a certain number of "build points" which limits how much you can upgrade at the same time. This includes individual wall and gate sections as well as other buildings. When upgraded you can then do activities in game to get more building points to upgrade additional parts of the castle, all the while upgrading the keep as well as needed with some of the rarer resources across the map that you hope aren't all in easily defended enemy turf. Then as I said before you gotta do it all over again if it downgrades. If it is a guild owned castle you have an additional roadblock of the keep can only be leveled as high as the level of the guild, which therefore limits the level of other buildings. This is bad since those are the castles that can be customized (needing far more resources to do so) and the way you level the guild is by not dying AND killing others to gain glory points and you can go very into the negatives. Also, only enemy players who already have glory points that they haven't spent yet can get you a decent amount of glory points on kills so have fun with that. You do get some points for doing other things too like capturing stuff and leveling up buildings but not as much and a death or two can nullify that. But you do need a fair number of active players and also they made it so that the glory spent leveling up the guild does not stay with the guild like influence does. Nope, if someone leaves a GV guild ALL those glory points spent on leveling the guild goes away. If enough people (or really just one or two) who contributed a lot leave it does de-level the guild. Worse still those players who leave don't even get to take those glory points with them. Those points are gone forever and disappear into a black hole.

It's all very simple really smile
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Azure_Zero
Actually Paddy, they sound closer then you think.

They are the same but both go through different methods of how systems interact kinda like connecting to the internet.
As the build points seem to be like influence, which we use for holdings which give bulk+DI which is used to pay upkeep on settlement upgrades.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Azure_Zero
Actually Paddy, they sound closer then you think.

They are the same but both go through different methods of how systems interact kinda like connecting to the internet.
As the build points seem to be like influence, which we use for holdings which give bulk+DI which is used to pay upkeep on settlement upgrades.

It really isn't the same at all. I would need screenshots and such to show the differences.

There is no bulk you save up nor upkeep. Whatever you put into upgrades is a sunk cost and one you will keep paying over and over again. Build points apply per castle not per guild or faction. They are not transferable and it is a 1 to 1 thing. One build point activates one building, one gate or one wall section to be upgradeable and you get very few points unless you put more money into it (and even then it is very expensive). The build points are separate from guild resources. They aren't remotely the same.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Bob
Having a balanced mix of ongoing activity costs that increase as a settlement grows helps keep PvP from overly bypassing the mix of activity required to build settlements in the first place. I say "overly" because obviously PvP depends in part on having the equipment to win battles and the influence to start them, so someone had to perform all the activity to build those up, but we didn't feel those were enough to balance against the huge investment the group that built the settlement made in the first place.

Different activities will feel more or less chore-like to different players, but admittedly transporting bulk resources hasn't hasn't had much of its intended gameplay implemented/realized as other activities have. That said, one of the main things keeping it interesting was supposed to be the risk of attacks along the way, so more interesting would have translated into even more activity required. More recently, we've discussed some other ways to make that system a little less chore-like, while keeping it balanced relative to the game's other systems, but all our ideas so far definitely involve more work than we can tackle right now.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Having a balanced mix of ongoing activity costs that increase as a settlement grows helps keep PvP from overly bypassing the mix of activity required to build settlements in the first place. I say "overly" because obviously PvP depends in part on having the equipment to win battles and the influence to start them, so someone had to perform all the activity to build those up, but we didn't feel those were enough to balance against the huge investment the group that built the settlement made in the first place.

Different activities will feel more or less chore-like to different players, but admittedly transporting bulk resources hasn't hasn't had much of its intended gameplay implemented/realized as other activities have. That said, one of the main things keeping it interesting was supposed to be the risk of attacks along the way, so more interesting would have translated into even more activity required. More recently, we've discussed some other ways to make that system a little less chore-like, while keeping it balanced relative to the game's other systems, but all our ideas so far definitely involve more work than we can tackle right now.
Bob,
Interesting. Your replies lead me to feel that your intent is that:
the mechanics stay in operation despite them(some feel) having little relevance in this tiny pop circumstance.
there is nothing that can be done to scale them now but someday you intend to.
you intend to leave them(the mechanics) all turned on.

Is that all correct?

Maybe it is mostly my own perspective(only) that there is little use for them and they are a burden on fun and should be turned off (JUST FOR NOW) until the pop rises to where the mechanics can function correctly and have that relevance. Because, as things are, they are just an obstacle to enjoying the game.

There may be just as many silent supporters for things just as they are. Is that so?
Bob
Flari-Merchant
Interesting. Your replies lead me to feel that your intent is that:
the mechanics stay in operation despite them(some feel) having little relevance in this tiny pop circumstance.
there is nothing that can be done to scale them now but someday you intend to.
you intend to leave them(the mechanics) all turned on.
I'd probably say something closer to "we don't have a plan for removing those mechanics at this time." The bulk resource mechanics are hooked into multiple systems, and advance multiple design goals, so it's not a simple task to remove them without working through all the consequences of that removal. At the very least, all the plans we like so far for making this aspect less chore-like require more code than we can look at doing for now.

Flari-Merchant
Maybe it is mostly my own perspective(only) that there is little use for them and they are a burden on fun and should be turned off (JUST FOR NOW) until the pop rises to where the mechanics can function correctly and have that relevance. Because, as things are, they are just an obstacle to enjoying the game.

There may be just as many silent supporters for things just as they are. Is that so?
I don't think there are a lot of people currently championing the need to run mules between holdings regularly, particularly on a large scale, but a fair number seem to enjoy the challenge of coming up with an efficient collection of holdings and outposts to match their settlement structures, and bulk resource considerations are a large part of those equations. Some folks also seem to enjoy Raids, and the reward for that is basically just bulk resources, and most of the value those resources have currently comes from being needed for settlement upkeep. Our systems are so intentionally intertwined that there are probably several other activities that could become less rewarding if bulk resources suddenly lost a lot of their value. Maybe there's a middle path that preserves enough of those things to be worth the effort, but it would be a tricky balance.

TL/DR: It's complicated.
Drizzle
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Having a balanced mix of ongoing activity costs that increase as a settlement grows helps keep PvP from overly bypassing the mix of activity required to build settlements in the first place. I say "overly" because obviously PvP depends in part on having the equipment to win battles and the influence to start them, so someone had to perform all the activity to build those up, but we didn't feel those were enough to balance against the huge investment the group that built the settlement made in the first place.

Different activities will feel more or less chore-like to different players, but admittedly transporting bulk resources hasn't hasn't had much of its intended gameplay implemented/realized as other activities have. That said, one of the main things keeping it interesting was supposed to be the risk of attacks along the way, so more interesting would have translated into even more activity required. More recently, we've discussed some other ways to make that system a little less chore-like, while keeping it balanced relative to the game's other systems, but all our ideas so far definitely involve more work than we can tackle right now.
Bob,
Interesting. Your replies lead me to feel that your intent is that:
the mechanics stay in operation despite them(some feel) having little relevance in this tiny pop circumstance.
there is nothing that can be done to scale them now but someday you intend to.
you intend to leave them(the mechanics) all turned on.

Is that all correct?

Maybe it is mostly my own perspective(only) that there is little use for them and they are a burden on fun and should be turned off (JUST FOR NOW) until the pop rises to where the mechanics can function correctly and have that relevance. Because, as things are, they are just an obstacle to enjoying the game.

There may be just as many silent supporters for things just as they are. Is that so?
Unless you mean PvP which is more or less irrelevant with such a tiny population, but should be retained for when things improved - I am unclear what mechanics you are talking about.

Escalations? - how else will you get recipes and expendables
Holdings? you have an alt at each holding and log them in once every week or two to drop into upkeep what the holding eats from your stock in inventory and move excess production to the alts inventory, ever few months do the rounds with a medium or large mule and restock the alts and grab your stuff
NPC raids on holdings - it is sort of optional to defend against these as they only eat the current days production
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post