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.

The Denouement

Tink says Stab
I haven't played PFO in a long, long time, but I got a notification about this post, and was saddened. PFO was a big part of my early twenties, and many of the relationships that I built either on these forums or inside the game continue to be keystones of my life even today.

To all those that I played with, argued with, viscously murdered, I wish you all a goodnight, and I hope life is good to you all.

Stab stab stab!
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Assuming many settlements will flip into caretaker mode as people stop playing (the finale stuff is only of real interest to the table top players) will the final points be based on the maximum plus of structures placed, or on the level they are set at when things finally collapse?

The Structure Points for each settlement will be based on that settlement's best week from the last 4 weeks the servers are up. So, if a settlement makes it to the first week of November still active, then collapses, its points will be based on how it was doing that first week. If another settlement remains active throughout November and keeps placing upgrading structures steadily, its points would be based on the final week.

If both settlements wound up with the same number of points, their writeups would get roughly the same amount of detail and attention. However, the first writeup might say the settlement is well-established but lately has some issues (labor strike, encroaching raiders, ogres on their doorstep, etc…), while the second might mention that it's a growing settlement needing lots of supplies for new construction. Anything I can incorporate about the dynamics of our world to make each settlement interesting to GMs and players is fair game.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
It has been quite a long time but I am still sad to hear this. It was a pleasure playing this when I did and an honor to play with you all.

I will come back on before the end. I gotta check on my settlement one last time and make sure no interlopers take Fianna's pride and joy. Gotta keep those meddling kids off my lawn.
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
I just removed the 6 and 12 month game time options from the store and from the new subscription options. Any subscriptions already set up with those options will continue to use them for any upcoming automatic purchases. If any of those automatic purchases result in purchasing too many game months to use up by the time we shut down, we'll refund pro-rated amounts as appropriate. If you'd like to minimize the risk of needing a refund, you may want to adjust your subscription settings to single month purchases as we get closer to November 28.

I also removed all the Player Housing, along with the 12 and 19 Box options for Azoth. I'll probably remove additional items as time goes on.
There are currently two claimable settlements on the map, Canis Castrum and Sunholm. As they are, they'll just get quick mentions in the Ghost Settlements section of the final writeup. However, there's still time to claim them and get a more substantial description, under a name of your choice. Those settlements don't have Keeps, so they're a little tricky to work with until enough DI can be built up to place them, but there should still be enough time to reactivate them in some form with a minimal amount of territory.

The full rules for claiming the settlements are at the end of the Settlement Warfare page. The main rule is that any group of cooperating companies that surrounds a claimable settlement by having a holding and 2 outposts in each neighboring hex can name a new owner. The general idea was that a group intending to claim a settlement would surround it themselves, or with the help of their allies, but there's no actual requirement that the new owner is a member (or even ally) of any of the surrounding companies. There also isn't a requirement that the cooperating companies are allies in any real sense. All that matters is that the leaders of the surrounding companies all agree on who gets named the new owner, and that the new owner is eligible for ownership (active and has access to a company to name as the founding company).
If you looking to PVP or settlement claims/changes, you might want to fix some PVP issues to pick up the pace.
My main point with that post was that there doesn't really even need to be any PvP in order for those settlements to get claimed, just an agreement between the people already surrounding it to let someone take it over. Of course, it's easier to get that agreement if you take the hexes over yourself, but diplomacy is always an option as well.

That said, I'm not averse to seeing a bit more PvP here at the end, and to some degree basing Pharasma Influence on Settlement Rank was meant to incentivize a bit of that. Sure, you can raise your rank by placing and upgrading more structures, but you can also do it by taking territory away from more developed settlements until they lack the DI to keep all their structures upgraded. Or you can play nice and try to get more cooperation in upgrading your structures. It's up to each alliance to figure out which strategy will earn them the most Pharasma Influence and the most interesting writeup they can get.

It's also tough for me to change much about PvP with content-only changes. I'll post a separate reply in that other thread to go over what is or isn't possible.
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post