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.

Let's end the world with a Bang

Azure_Zero
Since the Game is shutting down, and we have a lot of deadwood in caretaker mode

I vote that;
the PVP window be Changed to 4 TIMES it's length.
DI gradual degradation is removed and each week it is calculated with what can generate DI
Stealing a Hex from an Opposing Settlement steals their points as Well.
Taking a Settlement will transfer ALL points to the Victor.

Furthermore any settlement surrounded by ONE company can be seiged WITHOUT the need of Siege-engines.
Any settlement in capture mode can NOT be contested by a leader outside the game, it is ALL in game.
Edam
Azure_Zero
Since the Game is shutting down, and we have a lot of deadwood in caretaker mode

I vote that;
the PVP window be Changed to 4 TIMES it's length.
DI gradual degradation is removed and each week it is calculated with what can generate DI
Stealing a Hex from an Opposing Settlement steals their points as Well.
Taking a Settlement will transfer ALL points to the Victor.

Furthermore any settlement surrounded by ONE company can be seiged WITHOUT the need of Siege-engines.
Any settlement in capture mode can NOT be contested by a leader outside the game, it is ALL in game.
So, the equivalent of the kid that waits till everyone else goes home then stands on the middle of the baseball pitch and proclaims he is the best player in the ball park ?

Not sure I see any real kudos or in fact any point at all in vacuuming up abandoned settlements but if that is your thing go for it.
Azure_Zero
Edam
Azure_Zero
Since the Game is shutting down, and we have a lot of deadwood in caretaker mode

I vote that;
the PVP window be Changed to 4 TIMES it's length.
DI gradual degradation is removed and each week it is calculated with what can generate DI
Stealing a Hex from an Opposing Settlement steals their points as Well.
Taking a Settlement will transfer ALL points to the Victor.

Furthermore any settlement surrounded by ONE company can be seiged WITHOUT the need of Siege-engines.
Any settlement in capture mode can NOT be contested by a leader outside the game, it is ALL in game.
So, the equivalent of the kid that waits till everyone else goes home then stands on the middle of the baseball pitch and proclaims he is the best player in the ball park ?

Not sure I see any real kudos or in fact any point at all in vacuuming up abandoned settlements but if that is your thing go for it.

Actually it is more like two people suing each other, but one doesn't show in court,
as currently it is like two people sueing each other, only one shows up in court, and loses because the one that didn't show complained to the judge in a e-mail and wins.

A law of the River Kingdom is you have what you hold, you don't defend it in game, you lose it in game.
Garric Orcsbane
Azure_Zero
Since the Game is shutting down, and we have a lot of deadwood in caretaker mode

I vote that;
the PVP window be Changed to 4 TIMES it's length.
DI gradual degradation is removed and each week it is calculated with what can generate DI
Stealing a Hex from an Opposing Settlement steals their points as Well.
Taking a Settlement will transfer ALL points to the Victor.

Furthermore any settlement surrounded by ONE company can be seiged WITHOUT the need of Siege-engines.
Any settlement in capture mode can NOT be contested by a leader outside the game, it is ALL in game.

Well, while that seems to benefit you a great deal, other active settlements who have been playing the game with a different playstyle may not appreciate fundamental rules changes in the last few months. Especially the bit about not needing siege engines for settlements that are surrounded by one company (and no, that does not affect me personally). That's clearly a lets make things easy for me while keeping it hard for others to do the same thing move.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Guys…i think the intent was just to get some fights and one last hurrah of action. We can debate how it could be done but I don't think we need to get hostile with one another out of game over this.
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 Fitzpatrick
Guys…i think the intent was just to get some fights and one last hurrah of action. We can debate how it could be done but I don't think we need to get hostile with one another out of game over this.

Correct, Paddy
Garric Orcsbane
Not trying to be hostile, I just think Azure's suggestions are wrong. If we want to make changes I would first suggest turning friendly fire back on and then just make everyone Red, all the time. That will encourage fights.
Azure_Zero
This game was made with territorial warfare in mind from the Days of Ryan Dancy, so My suggestions give it's original purpose a boost.
Bob
I'm open to some simple changes to PvP where they feel like they'd make the last months more fun for everyone who has stuck with us all this time, but my ability to make such changes is very limited. Most of the PvP stuff is pretty hard-coded, and there just isn't enough time for me to get up-to-speed on the programming side to change any of that safely. From the ideas above, here's what I could or couldn't do, and some thoughts on whether I should or shouldn't do them.

  • PvP Windows: I can pretty easily change the window lengths, and even the number of days per week that the windows are open, in the spreadsheets. That would probably work, though it's possible there are some hard-coded bits that would get broken if I changed those numbers. The point of those is really to make it more likely that attackers will run into defenders, and I suspect increasing the windows now would make it extremely difficult for almost any current settlements to have defenders available for their windows.
  • DI Degradation: I don't see any spreadsheet numbers for that, pretty sure the math is all hard-coded.
  • Stealing a Hex Steals Defender's Points: There's not much in the spreadsheets to control what happens when a hex is taken, beyond setting the amount of influence returned when a building is torn down or taken over.
  • Taking Settlement Steals Defender's Points: Settlement takeovers are handled manually, so I do have a bit more control over that. I'm not 100% sure which points are being referred to here, but DI already gets initialized at a number higher than what's required for all the buildings that come with the settlement, then it's up to the victors to attach enough territory to keep the DI numbers up moving forward. If that's what's meant, I'm not sure there's any need to transfer more points than that, since there's probably not a lot more than that available and they'd degrade after a few weeks anyway.
  • Surrounded by Single Company Without Siege Equipment: The Settlement Warfare rules are all just out-of-game text, so they're easy to change. The siege damage system kind of depends on the T3 siege equipment for attacking anything beyond a low-level settlement though, and I'd think that almost any group capable of surrounding a settlement could put together 1-2 sets of T3 siege equipment capable of doing as much damage as surrounding it with a full set of T2 holdings. One small change that might help would be to say that the amount of bulk resources defenders are allowed to bring in is based on the number of neighboring hexes that don't have an "active holding or siege engine" in them, instead of just "active siege engine", meaning you could surround them with mostly holdings and just a few siege engines. Not sure how much difference that would make in the likeliness of a siege, but it sounds like a reasonable change.
  • Contesting Settlement from Outside the Game: I don't think there are currently any ways to contest a settlement's ownership aside from declaring a war at this point. We used to let players challenge whether or not a settlement had active leadership or was really active in-game, but I just check that myself semi-regularly now. The other Leadership Challenges are only for non-founding companies, so they don't affect settlement ownership.
Azure_Zero
To answer or clear up points

Point 1:
Due to Hex protection and the 3 days a week window, it'd take months to reach a core 6 of a settlement, hence if the windows are open for more days of the week and for longer, it would shorten the time and now mean if one is not watching or defending at all they could lose a settlement or two or even more in less then a month.

point 2:
if it's hard coded then not much can be done.

Points 3+4:
I'm talking about the points for the final event

point 5:
The reason for dropping siege equipment is cost; influence (tear-down, and rebuilding a few times), time (again tear-down and rebuild phases), bulk (the engines are expensive as hell for the final go)
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post