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
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.
Azure_Zero
Hmm, we could have the Settlement Type/Role influence what Organisation Factions can and can not join that settlement,
Each Organisation Faction should have at least two Settlement Roles it could join.

Now the Builder role will be the only settlement role open to Every Organisation faction since every faction will need supply in some way.

Like;
Sczarni faction can join either Bandit or Merchant settlements
Liberty's Edge faction can join either Light Shield or Guard settlements
Poisoned Lodge Faction can join either Dark Sword, Merchant, or Warlord settlements
Azure_Zero
@Giorgio
This is More a Settlement Type of faction level, not organisation level factions , though some of the organisations could be referenced in the settlement type as a few fall under the same settlement type/faction.
That and the list only covers a small area in the PFO world, there are a ton more.