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.

All posts created by Azure_Zero

Azure_Zero
@Bringslite
I agree that the Bulk moving is a royal pain and very unfun given the current population.
Thankfully I only run two companies one for each settlement, but it is still a pain when you only have one great combat character and need to defend two settlements from monster raids.

If you want to add a fun factor to your Bulk runs you could always lower the security level and tempt the bandits into the area to break the boring same old, same old.
While I would agree losing stuff sucks, but the excitement of something unexpected happening keeps me on my toes.

Stilachio Thrax
I don't mind having the Low end escalations since I then don't need to worry about being monster raided as much and I don't mind doing the T1 and Raid escalations since equipment can get expensive to replace for me since I can only make T2 stuff and my settlements can really only support T2 training, though I hope to at least give entry level T3 support at a later time since my nation is the smallest of the 3 nations on the server, even if the AL is came back.
Azure_Zero
Sorry to dampen your spirit some, But given the Current Dev team's size and budget, I don't think it would be possible for a LONG time to get even half of what you want from DDO into PFO unless some serious cash came in for the game.
Heck the only Devs left are pretty much the programmers, no artists, modellers, or animators.
The Roadmap's that do get released, do have some nice upgrades, but the only major upgrades that are doable already have much of the code in the system and just needing some completion.
Now the new Roadmap will be released soon, as in a month or two and you can then put some of your opinion in and they might change some of the minor things, but nothing major.

I know I would love a character customization update, heck I would even recommend Morph3D for character customization.
But I know they would need to do work updating the outfits and accessories to work with Morph3D, since the base is free and getting a few more morphs would add a lot for the small cost.

@oneyeddragon
oneyeddragon
…But there isn't a game out there that has the customization, game play, TR system, skill trees and the combat style of DDO (aka Dungeons and Dragons online). There is much potential in your game to surpass DDO and laterally steal there player base if you incorporate some if not all of those styles from DDO.
..

I would recommend being clear and defined in what your asking here, and offer solutions and ideas for getting them in with only a small Dev team.

Also Note that since PFO was designed from the Beginning to NOT be a Theme park MMO with all the common MMO designs like WoW and DDO, so odds are it won't end up as you envision or plan to have PFO become even if half of it gets incorporated in.
PFO was designed as a territory control game with PVP and PVE being balanced at it's core.
Now that could change, but I highly doubt it, since it would cost a few bodies along with a arm and a leg to upgrade PFO into a theme park MMO.
Azure_Zero
There are a few other NPC settlements that could be the place to go for this and since Rotter's hole was and is the only NPC settlement folks can go if their rep is tanked.
So Rathglen, Ossian's Crossing, Marchmont, and Kindleburn would make better choices for it instead of Rotter's Hole and since Marchmont and Rathglen are the only two NPC settlements that are reasonably in the centre of the map, they would make better choices for folks wanting to see it.
Azure_Zero
Demiurge
Surely this will re-introduce the "friends with different builds cannot play together in the same settlement" issue that we had back before all settlements offered universal support.

There is No character build restriction in the idea, just what the role the settlement is taking.

Recall the Original PFO specs that support this idea and work with the Original specs and makes Hard Choices Matter,
And Hard is Fun.

1) All Nations WILL declare an Alignment and ONLY settlements within one step of that Alignment would be allowed to join the nation, sans TN nations which must declare a Neutral axis alignment.

2) Spells and class features have alignment or requirements case in point;
Channel Energy is alignment locked, Positive is Non-evil and Negative is Non-Good
Sanctified attacks are Cleric Feature Locked, Cleric Features are Deity Locked, Deities are Alignment Locked.

3) Certain actions would shift or Support your alignment, and if you were out of alignment with the settlement, the settlement did not support you (i.e. no banking, training, crafting, and or attacked by guards … etc)

Now I did include SOME ability in getting a number of roles in a nation, just Not All Of Them.
As I did make Light Shield and Dark Sword Opposing Factions and that they should NOT be in the same nation, and that these Two have settlement types know whom to call friends since they align with that settlement role/faction.
Azure_Zero
Oh that is Right the Store page NEEDS a Major fixing.
Subs are somewhat fine on the page as is, but the Rest, Oh no it needs fixing for new and experienced users.
You should be able to click the item and go to it's page so the user can learn what it is,
not put it in the cart with no idea of what it is.
Azure_Zero
Great Idea Cal, that is the best idea I heard of yet,…. no seriously…
It gives PVPers the PVP and lets those that like PVE a better challenge and it looks PVE.
Azure_Zero
definitely not user friendly in parts
Azure_Zero
@Bringslite
If the Game was marketed correctly with the right Title, more of the PVPers would of Kickstarted and joined the game.
It should of been marketed as Fantasy EVE Online, and it might of caught the attention of the PVPers.

But with game markets now a days you have to be the first to market with the idea and get it right, and not just do another CoD or PUBG clone
Azure_Zero
True most of Pathfinder TT is on the Coop side fighting monsters, doing quests, … etc.
But remember where we are in the Pathfinder world.
It is the River Kingdoms, where kingdoms have been fighting each other using various methods and means to expand.
So yeah PVP and PVE have to be in balance here, since players are also content.

You can't lock yourself into a little piece of the world and NEVER expect to get PVP coming to your door.
Look at the HRC for example, we kept basically to ourselves didn't attack anyone, and got Wiped out in week of attacks because one group didn't like the HRC controlling an area they really could not call a settlement.

Now I agree with Paddy, Kenton and a few others that Pathfinder Online SHOULD NEVER of been called Pathfinder Online in the first place,
due to this being a big divergence from the Coop/quest game style found in Table Top play to the PVP style of play found in EVE Online.
It should of been called "Battle for the River Kingdoms: a Pathfinder online Game."
Reasons: 1 inform the player this is a PVP game with PVE elements, 2 it uses the Pathfinder setting, 3 kingdoms are player made.
Azure_Zero
@Harad Navar
I envisioned Light Shield and Dark Sword groups as polar opposites for PVP, and that both would help/harm certain opposing escalations.
I also setup the Guard Role to oppose the Bandit and Warlord Roles.
I set it up so there was one dead to rights Good aligned settlement role for heavy PVP with PVE support, while the evil and neutral aligned have a few settlement role options for PVP minded groups so they can fight amongst themselves.

Remember folks this is a territory control game.
Hence why I made all settlement roles have both PVP and PVE in mind, so that a PVE heavy role could fight back against a PVP heavy role should a fight start between them.