Posts from Azure_Zero | Pathfinder Online

Page 16 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 03.20.2020 16:46
	Edam …. more likely are part of a "collection" being hoarded by one of the larger groups to hand out to new players/guilds if the game takes off. … Yeah and that hand off likely comes with strings attached, or perceived strings attached by other groups. as this is another reason to set them as NPC settlements until the game takes off and HAS a population that needs new settlements. I myself would like the see a new standard for being able to hold a settlement, like; Settlements at Level 10 and lower require 6 active characters, settlements with a minimum of one active character must have the settlement operating at minimum support level of 14, with a +2 Keep, and the sum the other building +X total sans infrastructure be +15 (i.e 13 (+1), 1 (+2), 4 (+0) = +15), Settlements in the support range of 11-13 require 4 active characters, a +1 Keep, and total building +X totals (sans infrastructure) being +9 This forces a settlement collector a choice of either paying extra cash to keep the settlements with cheap support or the need for more holdings and and bulk resources to keep one active character. A settlement is suppose to be a team effort, so this extra character cost for a low support settlement is for the independent groups that may pop in the game in the future. Now the higher level cost for solo active run settlements makes it so a settlement collector has more work to keep their settlements in their collection, thus freeing some up for new groups if they come in. Now if your wondering why the setup I gave above makes the middle ground more costly, it's to nudge a settlement collector to an extreme for their settlements in their collection. Quote

Azure_Zero 03.20.2020 16:46

Edam
….

more likely are part of a "collection" being hoarded by one of the larger groups to hand out to new players/guilds if the game takes off.

…

Yeah and that hand off likely comes with strings attached, or perceived strings attached by other groups.

as this is another reason to set them as NPC settlements until the game takes off and HAS a population that needs new settlements.

I myself would like the see a new standard for being able to hold a settlement, like;
Settlements at Level 10 and lower require 6 active characters, settlements with a minimum of one active character must have the settlement operating at minimum support level of 14, with a +2 Keep, and the sum the other building +X total sans infrastructure be +15 (i.e 13 (+1), 1 (+2), 4 (+0) = +15), Settlements in the support range of 11-13 require 4 active characters, a +1 Keep, and total building +X totals (sans infrastructure) being +9
This forces a settlement collector a choice of either paying extra cash to keep the settlements with cheap support or the need for more holdings and and bulk resources to keep one active character.

A settlement is suppose to be a team effort, so this extra character cost for a low support settlement is for the independent groups that may pop in the game in the future.
Now the higher level cost for solo active run settlements makes it so a settlement collector has more work to keep their settlements in their collection, thus freeing some up for new groups if they come in.

Now if your wondering why the setup I gave above makes the middle ground more costly, it's to nudge a settlement collector to an extreme for their settlements in their collection.

Quote

Azure_Zero 03.20.2020 14:10
	Any chance the Light and Cloth armour prof requirements can be updated to include the new Alchemist armours? Quote

Azure_Zero 03.20.2020 13:48
	Given this game's population……. It's just better to just make them NPC shield hexes to stop any settlement collectors out there. And most of us know of who one of the Settlement Collectors is/are, with what 4-5 settlements and a number of them with only a single company with a single character (likely a free trial mode character as well), and running the settlement as cheaply as possible without it being inactive. Quote

Azure_Zero 03.20.2020 13:48

Given this game's population…….
It's just better to just make them NPC shield hexes to stop any settlement collectors out there.

And most of us know of who one of the Settlement Collectors is/are, with what 4-5 settlements and a number of them with only a single company with a single character (likely a free trial mode character as well), and running the settlement as cheaply as possible without it being inactive.

Quote

Azure_Zero 03.19.2020 12:24
	Apyx Should I be able to hit Combat Alchemist 20 by only purchasing the Implement Proficiency? It really doesn't feel right to just buy the Proficiency and get the Level without ever making (or buying) a single Alchemist attack. Yeah, your Right it does seem two easy. Maybe make the Level 1 and 9 levels require both the Weapon and Feature Profs as requirements instead of just the Feature Prof, as this is true for cleric, though Wizard does the so in a similar way in that the arcane attack bonus which is unique to that class so far limits super rapid progression in the class. Quote

Azure_Zero 03.19.2020 12:24

Apyx
Should I be able to hit Combat Alchemist 20 by only purchasing the Implement Proficiency? It really doesn't feel right to just buy the Proficiency and get the Level without ever making (or buying) a single Alchemist attack.

Yeah, your Right it does seem two easy.
Maybe make the Level 1 and 9 levels require both the Weapon and Feature Profs as requirements instead of just the Feature Prof, as this is true for cleric, though Wizard does the so in a similar way in that the arcane attack bonus which is unique to that class so far limits super rapid progression in the class.

Quote

Azure_Zero 03.18.2020 11:07
	Bob …. In part, I'm thinking of Combat Alchemist as a slightly more advanced role, so I was more inclined to look for an argument to make the recipes uncommon than to make them common. Perhaps that was a little unfair to the role. If so, at least there's an easy fix. I agree this does seem like an advance role and maybe should have more uncommon recipes, but every combat class at least gives the basics recipes so even a new player can make the things they need for their combat alchemist to do something without needing to hunt for recipes for even the basics. Quote

Azure_Zero 03.18.2020 11:07

Bob
….

In part, I'm thinking of Combat Alchemist as a slightly more advanced role, so I was more inclined to look for an argument to make the recipes uncommon than to make them common. Perhaps that was a little unfair to the role. If so, at least there's an easy fix.

I agree this does seem like an advance role and maybe should have more uncommon recipes, but every combat class at least gives the basics recipes so even a new player can make the things they need for their combat alchemist to do something without needing to hunt for recipes for even the basics.

Quote

Azure_Zero 03.17.2020 20:03
	Bob Azure_Zero I think the basic introductory recipes of the Combat Alchemist should of been Common, and not Uncommon. I didn't see a clear pattern of doing that with other roles, though it's possible I just wasn't looking at the most appropriate examples. At this point, it would probably be better to add in some common recipes than to switch any of the existing ones to common, assuming it's still worth doing so after a fair number of those recipes drop in the near future. I believe Cleric (Icono) and Wizard(Arti) have level 0 recipes for Charges(Ammo) and a Charge Gem (Container) Even archers had Level 0 Bowyer recipes for making Arrows and a woven Quiver, with the first Bows being a Level 1 common recipe. Every Class (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) had a Introductory Impliment and weapon at a crafting facility at available at level 1 as a Common recipe. So every class and weapon before combat alchemist had it basics covered with common recipes at levels 0 and 1 at various facilities and that is a clear pattern that matched up with every weapon and class before combat alchemist. Quote

Azure_Zero 03.17.2020 20:03

Bob
Azure_Zero
I think the basic introductory recipes of the Combat Alchemist should of been Common, and not Uncommon.
I didn't see a clear pattern of doing that with other roles, though it's possible I just wasn't looking at the most appropriate examples. At this point, it would probably be better to add in some common recipes than to switch any of the existing ones to common, assuming it's still worth doing so after a fair number of those recipes drop in the near future.

I believe Cleric (Icono) and Wizard(Arti) have level 0 recipes for Charges(Ammo) and a Charge Gem (Container)
Even archers had Level 0 Bowyer recipes for making Arrows and a woven Quiver, with the first Bows being a Level 1 common recipe.
Every Class (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) had a Introductory Impliment and weapon at a crafting facility at available at level 1 as a Common recipe.

So every class and weapon before combat alchemist had it basics covered with common recipes at levels 0 and 1 at various facilities and that is a clear pattern that matched up with every weapon and class before combat alchemist.

Quote

Azure_Zero 03.17.2020 19:00
	I think the basic introductory recipes of the Combat Alchemist should of been Common, and not Uncommon. Quote

Azure_Zero 03.17.2020 17:35
	Talonguard AH please and thank you Quote

Azure_Zero 03.17.2020 10:43
	Shame we don't have the Combat Alchemist trainers in TK. Quote

Azure_Zero 03.07.2020 13:48
	Not seeing those new features when using the Atlas… Quote

Page 16 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