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

Fresh stock of Bulk is now on the Auction house

First Come, First Served
I Really think we should start steering away from making more standard monster escalations that only the few PVE elite want and start looking at making New Types of Escalations, and I mean ones that DO NOT stay constrained in a monster or home hex and can affect hexes in a wide area.

The New Types I'm talking about at ones that can be predictable and unpredictable and happen outside the monster/home hexes.
One new type of escalation event could be town sieges (or even applied to non-monster/home hex adjacent holdings)
Like an attack of Undead against your home settlement, event happens at start of PVP window to be fair when it happens.

Another new type could be a Wandering escalation, and it uses the infection mechanics simulate the wandering.
I'll post more thoughts/ideas on this one when I have the time.
Bob Can you knock Highroad off the List as it is a Dead Settlement, Along with a few the other dead settlements, just take a snapshot of the current state of settlements, and any shutdown are dead and don't go on the list.
As it'll make it more manageable then what we are still clearing out.
The cleared, Unassigned ones could be fought over.

Also High Road 4-4-5-5-5, Better known as TalonGuard 1-6 is THE TalonGuard Hex, it has been since the Days of the HRC.
So I ask when launching the new Event, that TalonGuard is assigned it's correct hex.
Two years ago the *Holiday Escalation Event* was cooperative, whereas last year it was competitive. I think the former is much healthier for the current PFO community given the limited number of players.

I disagree, I think a competitive event is healthier then the cooperative at this point;
One, a competitive event will incentivize players into playing and to win.
Two, a purely cooperative event means no incentive for some players, thus killing the game a bit more then it is.
Three, competitive can also be cooperative, but not the other way around, recall last year, who the North teamed up with another to beat Aragon to First place…..
Four, Even other games like PFO, i.e. Gloria Victis are making sure things don't get stagnant with the game by opening the PVP and competive window some more.
Hey, here is an idea! Have the Alchemist use Tokens in some capacity, distilling them or transforming them or something, making Tokens a part of the economy instead of an annoying loot padding.

A freaking "YES" to this.
Please carefully consider how you are going to roll out this years Holiday Event. As I said in another thread, and especially since both the developers of the game and most of the current player base are so PvP adverse, a cooperative type event will be much healthier and strengthening for the community than a competitive event. Just my 2cp.

I agree that it should be carefully considered in how this years Holiday Event will roll out,
But I disagree with it needing to be co-operative, and all this PvP adverse play is what is also killing this game with stagnation.
Heck even Gloria Victis did something to stop the game's stagnation of settlements, what they effectively did was free feuds every now and then but requiring a quest trigger to activate.
Also a competitive event is healthier for this game in that if you want to win you need to round as many players onto your side to beat the others to the punch, heck the North worked/cooperated with another group to win.
So you can't say competitive can't have any co-operative elements to it.
TBH with one or two notable exceptions (Tevis' and Greater Holy Light come to mind) the game is flooded with expendables of all tiers and types. Having people handed back copies of every expendable they ever learnt will only exasperate the problem.


And think of losing them as part of the cost, no recouping coin to offset the coin lost in respecting.
That and it makes the potential loss of hard to get expendables also a cost and something to make one re-consider respecting their character.
There is lots of good stuff here and as great a plan as any. I do not see anything about an upgrading of the engine (unless I missed it).

So I am curious if some of these things will create problems, later, that cause much back recoding for the newer engine version's requirements?

I think the upgrade to Unity 5/2019/whatever could be a real horror, I did one in a small hobby project and that was … problematic. Hopefully there has been other large that have done it now and there are some experience to draw on that.

And of Deities I vote for Hanspur of course, he is from the Riverland so he should actually be the only God introduced!

Yeah I can imagine the tip of the iceberg of the work needed for the unity upgrade; materials and shaders I know have been overhauled, and number of features and functions deprecated and replaced, add in that PFO is running a custom version of Unity 4.
You can tell it'll be a hell of a time upgrading things, I figure it would take them a fully-focused year to get the upgrade done.
Just looked over the Raodmap again, and thought I'd put down my thoughts on a number of the items;

Per Character Subscriptions:
This is nice, But how will it interact with DT accounts?

Nice to get a new class, but I hope it won't be the new OP thing that everyone jumps on.

New Escalation/Sequence:
This is a great New Year's tradition, But given the game's current population and number of active settlements, I ask that the number of hexes seeded with the sequence are cut down, as we have not even finished half of what was left from last year, so yeah cut it down to a number equal to say 2 to 2 and a half times the number of active settlements. What'll define 'active settlement' as a definition is that the settlement can't of been shutdown for more then a month for the whole year.

Spreading Escalations:
This is good, in that it'll keep folks busy and tending to their holdings.
Though I ask that if a hex has been infested for say a month, that any holding and it's outposts degrade by one like in a capture, so as to slowly clean out the dead company and settlement claims.

XP Purchases:
I hope this gets a cap so one can't have more exp then a day 1 account and so day 1's can not buy their way into being level 20 in everything the second it's available.

Breaking one of the Kickstarter rules, in that respects were never to be allowed.
But since it's coming, so far it's not a bad, but could be more costly to really make player think about it and that includes wiping the recipes learned.

Expanded Escalations and Additional Elite Escalations:
A nice thing, but we need a completely new type of escalation, one that can sow chaos and put players and settlements on alert with their feet on the ground and a focus to kill it fast.
This new PVE escalation type should be designed to sow chaos to the mundane operations of the game's day to day, as a small band of Zycor's would.
I do have an idea of how to do it along with a number of it's mechanics, but that'll need a whole new thread.

Flag for PvP:
This needs to be done right, and the risk vs reward for PVP need to be big. When I say big I mean that it changes the game completely for the player opting in or out of PVP.
I mean access to; claiming territory, placing holdings, entering low sec hexes, level caps, etc.

While I can say this is a step in the right direction, I think the order is a bit off. But given the game's population it's the better start point.
Also since I'm still here, add in Kurgress to the list of the initial release of deities.
Hopefully the *Flag for PvP* will auto happen once you cross into a monster hex, or a hex someone has claimed and set to Low security…if not, then the game might be more populated by people who want to play a multiplayer version of Kingmaker, but I don't think that is going to make for a game that is actually any more interesting than it is right now.

The goal is to make sure that players can't be attacked by other players unless they've explicitly and knowingly agreed to participate in PvP. Instead of automatically flagging for PvP by taking some other action, which is more of an implicit agreement, we plan to restrict player actions until they explicitly flag for PvP. We haven't picked the exact restrictions yet, but basically you'd get a message stating that you need to flag for PvP first whenever you attempt a restricted action.

And yes, this does mean a fair percentage of players are likely to be completely PvP-averse and will never flag for it. However, those players simply won't play the game at all if they can't do so meaningfully without risking PvP. Think of them as adding to the total population, not as subtracting from the PvP-willing population.

FYI, there's a fairly extensive (and fairly recent) discussion on this topic in the Flag for PvP thread under Crowdforging.

I hope Goblinworks gets the PVP flag states and what each state means right,
as the PVP in this game currently sucks and is TOO in favor of the Non-PVP players.

That game was way more exciting when we had Zycor running around causing chaos, folks were one their feet, playing, and using their social contacts within the game.
If you want that buzz to happen, the PVP gate needs more opening then what it is.