Posts from Azure_Zero | Pathfinder Online

Page 13 of 99
←
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
→

Azure_Zero 02.11.2020 14:59
	Kenton Stone Two cents from an "unemployed" bandit. No settlement that is [Dead/Inactive]{not paying upkeep} should participate in active alliances protecting hexes. All their hexes should be vulnerable to raiding and not protecting neighboring hexes. I have to agree with Kenton's point and idea about dead settlements within an alliance. Quote

Azure_Zero 02.03.2020 19:55
	Garric Orcsbane Since the best Alchemists are bartenders the trainer should be in the Tavern. Didn't see Breaking Bad, I could easily see them working for the guild. Quote

Azure_Zero 02.03.2020 19:52
	Congrats on the tower and it looks sweet, to bad we couldn't see another angle to get a better idea of all the changes each + gives. Quote

Azure_Zero 02.02.2020 10:45
	Bob NightmareSr I didn't think about the other future roles at all. That makes more sense then, but does leave a hard decision for where to but the crazy alchemist. So sorcerers and bards for university, but are there already plans for the other roles/classes to go to current large buildings, whenever they get added to the game? Nothing's locked down, and some roles may shift around a bit due to second edition, but here's some of the thoughts from when the structures were initially designed: Barracks: Fighter, Aristocrat, Ranger Cathedral: Cleric, Paladin Guild House: Expert, Freeholder, Rogue Training Field: Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger University: Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer Well Looking at the Inital Buildings, I see Druid is missing, and I thought Aristocrat would be better at the Keep itself. But If I had to Fit in Alchemist, to one it'd be GuildHouse. Reasons: 1) Expert and Freeholder are Non-Combat classes 2) Alchemist would be likely using Light armours (Skimisher) 3) Using Ranged and light weapons (Skimisher) – Bob NightmareSr I like standards and matching things so only crafting/refining in the smalls, 2 crafts in mediums with then the combats all being multiples in the larges and single combat trainer in the mediums would mean the new combat Alchemist should be added to a large building and have a single trainer medium. Standards do make things easier to understand. In general it's true that each role gets one dedicated medium, but there's also at least one medium covering their favored weapons, and the alchemists's tools feel different enough from other weapons that it feels like it deserves a new medium as well. So Alchemists get Two New Mediums, or one that gives both the; features, Armours, utilities and also the Attacks, reactives/defensives, and the other general feats needed? Also then are you going to make a New Holding for the Alchemist that folks could buy their Attacks, reactives/defensives, and the other general feats needed for the Alchemist? – Bob NightmareSr Is the new combat alchemist getting just one trainer like the rogue, 2 trainers like current clerics, or 3 trainers like the wizard and fighter? I'm thinking just one trainer for the non-attack alchemist feats and 1 trainer for the attack (alchemist's tools) feats. Every Class has a Feature trainer and Attack trainer, like Rogue and Fighter, so seems a Standard is being followed. So I'm guessing a New Holding will be in the works since every class holding covers that classes attacks ? – Bob NightmareSr If the new Alchemist has any required proficiency that has to be trained from existing trainers then the new trainer should really be added to a large building that has that trainer. Otherwise maybe it needs a new large building that is like the guild but has the combat alchemist instead of rogue with expert, freeholder and then have the crafting alchemist or whatever else fits/needed instead of the skirmisher. Alchemists have their own proficiencies that should be on their own trainer. I believe he was asking more if the new trainer would be; added to a existing large building, a new Large varient of a building that uses the trainer, or that a trainer is swapped out of a existing Large building to add the new one? Quote

Azure_Zero 02.02.2020 10:45

Bob
NightmareSr
I didn't think about the other future roles at all. That makes more sense then, but does leave a hard decision for where to but the crazy alchemist. So sorcerers and bards for university, but are there already plans for the other roles/classes to go to current large buildings, whenever they get added to the game?

Nothing's locked down, and some roles may shift around a bit due to second edition, but here's some of the thoughts from when the structures were initially designed:

Barracks: Fighter, Aristocrat, Ranger
Cathedral: Cleric, Paladin
Guild House: Expert, Freeholder, Rogue
Training Field: Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger
University: Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer

Well Looking at the Inital Buildings, I see Druid is missing, and I thought Aristocrat would be better at the Keep itself.
But If I had to Fit in Alchemist, to one it'd be GuildHouse.
Reasons:
1) Expert and Freeholder are Non-Combat classes
2) Alchemist would be likely using Light armours (Skimisher)
3) Using Ranged and light weapons (Skimisher)

–

Bob
NightmareSr
I like standards and matching things so only crafting/refining in the smalls, 2 crafts in mediums with then the combats all being multiples in the larges and single combat trainer in the mediums would mean the new combat Alchemist should be added to a large building and have a single trainer medium.

Standards do make things easier to understand. In general it's true that each role gets one dedicated medium, but there's also at least one medium covering their favored weapons, and the alchemists's tools feel different enough from other weapons that it feels like it deserves a new medium as well.

So Alchemists get Two New Mediums, or one that gives both the; features, Armours, utilities and also the Attacks, reactives/defensives, and the other general feats needed?

Also then are you going to make a New Holding for the Alchemist that folks could buy their Attacks, reactives/defensives, and the other general feats needed for the Alchemist?

–

Bob
NightmareSr
Is the new combat alchemist getting just one trainer like the rogue, 2 trainers like current clerics, or 3 trainers like the wizard and fighter?

I'm thinking just one trainer for the non-attack alchemist feats and 1 trainer for the attack (alchemist's tools) feats.

Every Class has a Feature trainer and Attack trainer, like Rogue and Fighter, so seems a Standard is being followed.
So I'm guessing a New Holding will be in the works since every class holding covers that classes attacks ?

–

Bob
NightmareSr
If the new Alchemist has any required proficiency that has to be trained from existing trainers then the new trainer should really be added to a large building that has that trainer. Otherwise maybe it needs a new large building that is like the guild but has the combat alchemist instead of rogue with expert, freeholder and then have the crafting alchemist or whatever else fits/needed instead of the skirmisher.

Alchemists have their own proficiencies that should be on their own trainer.

I believe he was asking more if the new trainer would be; added to a existing large building, a new Large varient of a building that uses the trainer, or that a trainer is swapped out of a existing Large building to add the new one?

Quote

Azure_Zero 01.29.2020 15:58
	Bob Azure_Zero I think this part should be an exemption from the rule, and be account based, not character based. As a inactive character does not have any of the main benefits of being active, and doing account based stops some possible headaches. The only real headache involved is that the character has to be activated for a month to file the leadership challenge, and this fortunately isn't a very common occurrence. I think I've only been asked to help out with similar situations a few times over the last few years. I'm also generally willing to be fairly helpful in terms of just helping players get in touch with other players in these cases, particularly when it feels like the game didn't do enough to discourage characters from getting into these situations. Speaking of which, I was testing this all out a bit just to see what we do to prevent this kind of situation. The last leader is in fact blocked from leaving the company, though not if they're the last member of the company. Of course, they're not blocked from leaving at all if there are technically other leaders, but they're not actively playing, which can effectively leave the company leaderless. I think adding some confirmation dialogs and/or adding some hoops to the process (like requiring leaders to demote themselves first before leaving the company) would help a lot here. I've filed a bug report to look into possible improvements. Alright Bob, I'll give a scenario as to why you'll need to do this on an account base over a character base. Say someone has X accounts, so 3X in characters and has say (1.5+)X in companies, but is only subbing for X or less in characters and has 1 character hopping around to keep those companies useful and manage them. Being account based you just sank about X companies into uselessness, and can't be helped cause a character can't hop around without being locked into a company. While if the inactivity checks based on account rather then character, All companies can be in a useful state and accessible, but now it would require that they do keep all accounts active to do so and could be counted as a bit of a compromise. Quote

Azure_Zero 01.29.2020 15:58

Bob
Azure_Zero
I think this part should be an exemption from the rule, and be account based, not character based.
As a inactive character does not have any of the main benefits of being active, and doing account based stops some possible headaches.

The only real headache involved is that the character has to be activated for a month to file the leadership challenge, and this fortunately isn't a very common occurrence. I think I've only been asked to help out with similar situations a few times over the last few years. I'm also generally willing to be fairly helpful in terms of just helping players get in touch with other players in these cases, particularly when it feels like the game didn't do enough to discourage characters from getting into these situations.

Speaking of which, I was testing this all out a bit just to see what we do to prevent this kind of situation. The last leader is in fact blocked from leaving the company, though not if they're the last member of the company. Of course, they're not blocked from leaving at all if there are technically other leaders, but they're not actively playing, which can effectively leave the company leaderless. I think adding some confirmation dialogs and/or adding some hoops to the process (like requiring leaders to demote themselves first before leaving the company) would help a lot here. I've filed a bug report to look into possible improvements.

Alright Bob, I'll give a scenario as to why you'll need to do this on an account base over a character base.
Say someone has X accounts, so 3X in characters and has say (1.5+)X in companies,
but is only subbing for X or less in characters and has 1 character hopping around to keep those companies useful and manage them.
Being account based you just sank about X companies into uselessness, and can't be helped cause a character can't hop around without being locked into a company.
While if the inactivity checks based on account rather then character, All companies can be in a useful state and accessible, but now it would require that they do keep all accounts active to do so and could be counted as a bit of a compromise.

Quote

Azure_Zero 01.29.2020 14:00
	I'd like it if the Library actually functioned like a Library and could store all those papers we find. Quote

Azure_Zero 01.29.2020 03:24
	Bob Azure_Zero … Azure_Zero I think it might be best to do this inactive check at the account level, rather then checking on the character. Part of the reason the price per month dropped so much with the per character subscription switch was precisely because we're no longer passing any benefits of being active along to the other characters on the account. On the positive side, it's now cheaper to occasionally activate those secondary characters for rare issues like this than it was to pay to have the whole account active all the time. I think this part should be an exemption from the rule, and be account based, not character based. As a inactive character does not have any of the main benefits of being active, and doing account based stops some possible headaches. Quote

Azure_Zero 01.29.2020 03:24

Bob
Azure_Zero
…

Azure_Zero
I think it might be best to do this inactive check at the account level, rather then checking on the character.

Part of the reason the price per month dropped so much with the per character subscription switch was precisely because we're no longer passing any benefits of being active along to the other characters on the account. On the positive side, it's now cheaper to occasionally activate those secondary characters for rare issues like this than it was to pay to have the whole account active all the time.

I think this part should be an exemption from the rule, and be account based, not character based.
As a inactive character does not have any of the main benefits of being active, and doing account based stops some possible headaches.

Quote

Azure_Zero 01.28.2020 16:37
	If one looks at the table top version a bit, I could see, Skirmisher being part of the needed training. Now I could see Alchemist if it weren't tied to any of the main combat class buildings, that it'd likely either a building that experts use or where one can craft with alchemy. Quote

Azure_Zero 01.28.2020 16:32
	What if a company has say 3 characters all leaders, two are inactive and the active leader jumps to help another company, we run into the same issue. I think it might be best to do this inactive check at the account level, rather then checking on the character. Quote

Azure_Zero 01.28.2020 14:31
	I think there is a small problem Bob. Some of us have X companies (that we completely control with other characters and or no other players in) and have less then X companies of characters subbed. So companies become leaderless and no way to get them back into leader position without sending support tickets. Quote

Page 13 of 99
←
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
→

Cookies Disclaimer

All posts created by Azure_Zero