Posts from Azure_Zero | Pathfinder Online

Page 13 of 104
←
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
→

Azure_Zero 06.20.2020 06:22
	Bob there is an even easier and better answer to your perceived problem then putting in that freaking activity Tax Just change the Influence Max from 1,000,000 to say 20,0000. Done. Don't put in code people hate to fix a problem, and create a new problem in the process, put in a answer that works. Quote

Azure_Zero 06.19.2020 19:41
	Flari hits it on the head here, Bob. Your adding a very mandatory and UN-FUN chore to the game and there is currently enough UN-FUN chores for running settlements that it is currently just at a tolerable level and now you want to add a freaking influence tax. Currently it is really taxing to claim a settlement and then build it up to around +2 with around level 14 support hence why NO ONE is claiming and building up any settlements. If there is No Fun, there will be No Players. And if there are No Players, there will be No Money. There is a Large Number of other elements that SHOULD be focused on, and this is NOT one of them. Flari's list but a small list of what should be looked at, In fact this should NOT be look at all UNTIL AFTER PVP and FEUDs gets properly FIXED, and not before. Quote

Azure_Zero 06.19.2020 19:41

Flari hits it on the head here, Bob.
Your adding a very mandatory and UN-FUN chore to the game and there is currently enough UN-FUN chores for running settlements that it is currently just at a tolerable level and now you want to add a freaking influence tax.
Currently it is really taxing to claim a settlement and then build it up to around +2 with around level 14 support hence why NO ONE is claiming and building up any settlements.

If there is No Fun, there will be No Players.
And if there are No Players, there will be No Money.

There is a Large Number of other elements that SHOULD be focused on, and this is NOT one of them.
Flari's list but a small list of what should be looked at,
In fact this should NOT be look at all UNTIL AFTER PVP and FEUDs gets properly FIXED, and not before.

Quote

Azure_Zero 06.19.2020 16:38
	BOB, you think NOW is the best time for putting that back in, it is the dumbest thing to do right now. One; Player retention is 0 that means no great influence generation and most active settlements are at the edge of what they are supporting with what few active players they have. Two; Players who have gotten to a high level and are casual players will leave this game when their settlement can no longer support them and they are one of the forms of cash income Goblinworks has left and some are on the edge of leaving, PFO can't afford that. Three; You'll be creating more dead settlements then live ones which will give the impression to new players the game is dying or dead, which is really bad for player retention. Four; During this time that system was not in place, settlements got a chance to grow and that took time and effort and now your going to nuke their work, congrats you've now cheesed off companies and players, some of which will leave making more dead companies, and settlements which is very bad given the game's number of active players (not accounts) is likely less then 40. This is something that SHOULD ONLY BE THOUGHT ABOUT AFTER; the Engine Upgrade AND the game's active player count (not number of active accounts) is more then say 500. Until these two conditions are met, doing this is the equivalent of PFO shoting it self in both legs, with a sawed off shotgun in the middle of a desert. It'll be a guaranteed death for PFO. Quote

Azure_Zero 06.19.2020 16:38

BOB, you think NOW is the best time for putting that back in, it is the dumbest thing to do right now.

One; Player retention is 0 that means no great influence generation and most active settlements are at the edge of what they are supporting with what few active players they have.

Two; Players who have gotten to a high level and are casual players will leave this game when their settlement can no longer support them and they are one of the forms of cash income Goblinworks has left and some are on the edge of leaving, PFO can't afford that.

Three; You'll be creating more dead settlements then live ones which will give the impression to new players the game is dying or dead, which is really bad for player retention.

Four; During this time that system was not in place, settlements got a chance to grow and that took time and effort and now your going to nuke their work, congrats you've now cheesed off companies and players, some of which will leave making more dead companies, and settlements which is very bad given the game's number of active players (not accounts) is likely less then 40.

This is something that SHOULD ONLY BE THOUGHT ABOUT AFTER; the Engine Upgrade AND the game's active player count (not number of active accounts) is more then say 500.
Until these two conditions are met, doing this is the equivalent of PFO shoting it self in both legs, with a sawed off shotgun in the middle of a desert.
It'll be a guaranteed death for PFO.

Quote

Azure_Zero 06.18.2020 20:53
	I do get the idea of Max influence needing to be calculated, but I don't think it'll ever work and it'll kill some of the smaller active settlements since they WON'T be able to keep their DI and Bulk Up for the levels their players are used to, or want to have, and we don't ever really seem to retain ANY new players that hop in. Some settlements only have a few active and dedicated players who are also casual players in a mid to high teens supporting level settlement with a number of buildings running at +2 or better, so congrats, your bring in a broken system and it'll be killing off some actually active settlements and not just the one's in a settlement collectors collection. also that formula still favors settlement collectors since they only need a holding to keep there absolute minimum of DI and bulk for a settlement running at a low level. If holdings need to be cleared, why not do a timer on the holdings counting the days since the Holding vault was accessed, if the count exceeds say a year then tear it down. This game is built on PVP and the rule, "You have What You Hold." Now I play more casually then I used to, but every week I still watch my PVP window(s), and do the weekly holding management for two settlements, so why are you killing off the dedicated casual player settlements? We have the PVP system for clearing and claiming hexes, and what this'll do it make feuding even harder to do since the influence you earn for getting a feud ready is now being eaten for holding upkeep, [sarcasm]what a great idea giving another hit to the feud system that needs more nerfing and butchering[/sarcasm] Quote

Azure_Zero 06.18.2020 20:53

I do get the idea of Max influence needing to be calculated, but I don't think it'll ever work and it'll kill some of the smaller active settlements since they WON'T be able to keep their DI and Bulk Up for the levels their players are used to, or want to have, and we don't ever really seem to retain ANY new players that hop in.

Some settlements only have a few active and dedicated players who are also casual players in a mid to high teens supporting level settlement with a number of buildings running at +2 or better, so congrats, your bring in a broken system and it'll be killing off some actually active settlements and not just the one's in a settlement collectors collection.

also that formula still favors settlement collectors since they only need a holding to keep there absolute minimum of DI and bulk for a settlement running at a low level.

If holdings need to be cleared, why not do a timer on the holdings counting the days since the Holding vault was accessed, if the count exceeds say a year then tear it down.
This game is built on PVP and the rule, "You have What You Hold."
Now I play more casually then I used to, but every week I still watch my PVP window(s), and do the weekly holding management for two settlements, so why are you killing off the dedicated casual player settlements?

We have the PVP system for clearing and claiming hexes, and what this'll do it make feuding even harder to do since the influence you earn for getting a feud ready is now being eaten for holding upkeep,
[sarcasm]what a great idea giving another hit to the feud system that needs more nerfing and butchering[/sarcasm]

Quote

Azure_Zero 06.10.2020 08:53
	Demiurge Some Cathedrals only cover two temples Aside from that - the only minor issue is that the expert training doubles up with the Guild house. I think this is the first time that a double up within large has occurred. In some ways a different third trainer, like for instance the library discussed earlier, might have worked better however its a minor point and not a huge issue. That is not the Only one that is doubled up, Skirmisher is in the Guild and Garrison. Quote

Azure_Zero 06.10.2020 08:53

Demiurge
Some Cathedrals only cover two temples

Aside from that - the only minor issue is that the expert training doubles up with the Guild house. I think this is the first time that a double up within large has occurred.

In some ways a different third trainer, like for instance the library discussed earlier, might have worked better however its a minor point and not a huge issue.

That is not the Only one that is doubled up, Skirmisher is in the Guild and Garrison.

Quote

Azure_Zero 06.02.2020 09:19
	Finished doing a major round of Upgrades to Talonguard over the Past 2 weeks, Upgraded both the Armoursmith and Smelter to +4, and upgraded the Cooperative to +3. I am working on Upgrading Corbenik a bit more. Quote

Azure_Zero 05.30.2020 09:26
	Bob … Medium Combat Alchemist Attack Structure: Combat Alchemist Attack Trainer (similar to a Skirmisher or Dreadnaught Trainer) Medium Combat Alchemist General Structure: Combat Alchemist General Trainer (similar to a Fighter College or Rogue Trainer) Large Combat Alchemist+ Structure: Combat Alchemist General and Attack Trainers, Expert Trainer …. Good to hear things are more of less in place for the trainers, But this does make the large a bit lack luster compared to the other Large class buildings, as all do cover 3-4 Medium buildings, with The Guild holding two half-classes to make it viable. So as it stands the Combat Alchemist large is currently sitting at about 2.5 trainers worth, with the guild sitting at a full 3 trainers worth, as Freeholder and Expert are more like half-classes Bob FYI, the Large structure is just being given three trainers for now to keep it in line with the majority of Larges that currently only cover for 2-3 Mediums (Guild House is the outlier at 4 Mediums), and to leave room for including any future roles that match it well (just as several other Larges are slated to take on additional roles when they become available). We explored adding in some non-role capabilities, but ultimately decided to keep Role trainers/capabilities on M/L structures and the more profession trainers/capabilities on S/M structures, mostly for consistency. The Cathedral is 4 mediums actually, it's just that there is a lot of overlap, as the Cathedral is actually; 1 seminary, and 3 temples. So it seems like there are only two medium buildings in the one large at first glance. Quote

Azure_Zero 05.30.2020 09:26

Bob
…

Medium Combat Alchemist Attack Structure: Combat Alchemist Attack Trainer (similar to a Skirmisher or Dreadnaught Trainer)
Medium Combat Alchemist General Structure: Combat Alchemist General Trainer (similar to a Fighter College or Rogue Trainer)
Large Combat Alchemist+ Structure: Combat Alchemist General and Attack Trainers, Expert Trainer
….

Good to hear things are more of less in place for the trainers,
But this does make the large a bit lack luster compared to the other Large class buildings,
as all do cover 3-4 Medium buildings, with The Guild holding two half-classes to make it viable.
So as it stands the Combat Alchemist large is currently sitting at about 2.5 trainers worth, with the guild sitting at a full 3 trainers worth, as Freeholder and Expert are more like half-classes

Bob
FYI, the Large structure is just being given three trainers for now to keep it in line with the majority of Larges that currently only cover for 2-3 Mediums (Guild House is the outlier at 4 Mediums), and to leave room for including any future roles that match it well (just as several other Larges are slated to take on additional roles when they become available). We explored adding in some non-role capabilities, but ultimately decided to keep Role trainers/capabilities on M/L structures and the more profession trainers/capabilities on S/M structures, mostly for consistency.

The Cathedral is 4 mediums actually, it's just that there is a lot of overlap, as the Cathedral is actually; 1 seminary, and 3 temples.
So it seems like there are only two medium buildings in the one large at first glance.

Quote

Azure_Zero 05.25.2020 08:18
	Did Middenheim call in some Ninjas? Quote

Azure_Zero 05.23.2020 07:31
	NightmareSr Bob, are there any final decisions on what trainers will be included in the new Combat Alchemist structures, particularly the new Large settlement structure. I would like to decide on other buildings for Cauchemar but am somewhat waiting to know what will be in that new large building. Thanks. I agree I'd like to know the final decision, as right now I recall the Large one is; Two for Combat Alchemist trainers(attacks, and features), Skirmisher, and Expert. For Me I'd like to know the Combat Alchemist Holding's information; Bulk requirements, DI generation, etc. And I'd like to know a timeline for these new buildings coming into the game, though I'd enjoy it if we could keep the traveling combat alchemist at the keeps up to a year after these get put in, since no one group has a giant stock of formulas to get to +3 or +4 combat alchemist buildings, and most settlements/groups already have every spot in the settlement filled with no where to put in the new buildings, so Combat alchemist could be a rare to train class for about the first year or so after the buildings are available to be put into settlements. Heck we still have stuff for classes that aren't even in the game yet (i.e. Ghostwood for Druid/Ranger, Dragonskin armours for the Barbarians and Sorcerers, etc) Quote

Azure_Zero 05.23.2020 07:31

NightmareSr
Bob, are there any final decisions on what trainers will be included in the new Combat Alchemist structures, particularly the new Large settlement structure.
I would like to decide on other buildings for Cauchemar but am somewhat waiting to know what will be in that new large building.
Thanks.

I agree I'd like to know the final decision, as right now I recall the Large one is; Two for Combat Alchemist trainers(attacks, and features), Skirmisher, and Expert.

For Me I'd like to know the Combat Alchemist Holding's information; Bulk requirements, DI generation, etc.

And I'd like to know a timeline for these new buildings coming into the game, though I'd enjoy it if we could keep the traveling combat alchemist at the keeps up to a year after these get put in, since no one group has a giant stock of formulas to get to +3 or +4 combat alchemist buildings, and most settlements/groups already have every spot in the settlement filled with no where to put in the new buildings, so Combat alchemist could be a rare to train class for about the first year or so after the buildings are available to be put into settlements.

Heck we still have stuff for classes that aren't even in the game yet
(i.e. Ghostwood for Druid/Ranger, Dragonskin armours for the Barbarians and Sorcerers, etc)

Quote

Azure_Zero 04.21.2020 13:28
	I did say I was willing to be a Linux tester. As the engine is converted over I'd still recommend changing the rendering core from DirectX to OpenGL just to help keep some WINE compatibility until Goblinworks does a Native Linux version. Quote

Page 13 of 104
←
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
→

Cookies Disclaimer

All posts created by Azure_Zero